THE  LIBRARIES 


GIVEN  BY 

J,  Enrique  Zanetti 


A    POLITICAL   AND   SOCIAL 
HISTORY    OF    MODERN    EUROPE 


VOLUME   I 
1500-1815 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    ■    BOSTON   ■    CHICAGO    ■    DALLAS 
ATLANTA   •    SAN    FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON    •    BOMBAY   •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


A   POLITICAL  AND   SOCIAL 

HISTORY  OF  MODLRN 

EUROPE 


BY 


CARLTON    J.    H.    HAYES 

ASSOCIATE   PROFESSOR   OF    HISTORY    IN    COLUMBIA 
UNIVERSITY 


VOLUME    I 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

1916 

yf//  rights   raerued 


J.  Enrique  Zanetti 
Jun  3    194r0 


^40 


Copyright,  1916, 
By  the  MACMILLAN   COMPANY. 

Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  July,  1916. 


J.  S.  Cashing  Co.  —  Borwifk  &  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mas.s.,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

This  book  represents  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  author  to 
satisfy  a  very  real  need  of  a  textbook  which  will  reach  far  enough 
back  to  afford  secure  foundations  for  a  college  course  in  modern 
European  history. 

The  book  is  a  long  one,  and  purposely  so.  Not  only  does  it 
undertake  to  deal  with  a  period  at  once  the  most  complicated 
and  the  most  inherently  interesting  of  any  in  the  whole  recorded 
history  of  mankind,  but  it  aims  to  impart  sufficiently  detailed 
information  about  the  various  topics  discussed  to  make  the  col- 
lege student  feel  that  he  is  advanced  a  grade  beyond  the  student 
in  secondary  school.  There  is  too  often  a  tendency  to  under- 
estimate the  intellectual  capabiHties  of  the  collegian  and  to 
feed  him  so  simple  and  scanty  a  mental  pabulum  that  he  be- 
comes as  a  child  and  thinks  as  a  child.  Of  course  the  author 
appreciates  the  fact  that  most  college  instructors  of  history 
piece  out  the  elementary  textbooks  by  means  of  assignments  of 
collateral  reading  in  large  standard  treatises.  All  too  frequently, 
however,  such  assignments,  excellent  in  themselves,  leave  woeful 
gaps  which  a  slender  elementary  manual  is  inadequate  to  fill. 
And  the  student  becomes  too  painfully  aware,  for  his  own  edu- 
cational good,  of  a  chasmal  separation  between  his  textbook  and 
his  collateral  reading.  The  present  manual  is  designed  to 
supply  a  narrative  of  such  proportions  that  the  need  of  additional 
reading  will  be  somewhat  lessened,  and  at  the  same  time  it  is 
provided  with  critical  bibliographies  and  so  arranged  as  to  en- 
able the  judicious  instructor  more  easily  to  make  substitutions 
here  and  there  from  other  works  or  to  pass  over  this  or  that 
section  entirely.  Perhaps  these  considerations  will  commend 
to  others  the  judgment  of  the  author  in  writing  a  long  book. 

Nowadays  prefaces  to  textbooks  of  modern  history  almost  in- 
variably proclaim  their  writers'  intention  to  stress  recent  happen- 
ings or  at  least  those  events  of  the  past  which  have  had  a  direct 
bearing  upon  the  present.     An  examination  of  the  following 


vi  PREFACE 

pages  will  show  that  in  the  case  of  this  book  there  is  no  dis- 
crepancy between  such  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  present 
writer  and  its  achievement.  Beginning  with  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, the  story  of  the  civilization  of  modern  Europe  is  carried 
down  the  seventeenth,  eighteenth,  and  nineteenth  centuries 
with  constant  crescendo.  Of  the  total  space  devoted  to  the  four 
hundred  years  under  review,  the  last  century  fills  half.  And 
the  greatest  care  has  been  taken  to  bring  the  story  down  to 
date  and  to  indicate  as  clearly  and  calmly  as  possible  the  under- 
lying causes  of  the  vast  contemporaneous  European  war,  which 
has  already  put  a  new  complexion  on  our  old  historical  knowl- 
edge and  made  everything  that  went  before  seem  part  and  parcel 
of  an  old  regime. 

As  to  why  the  author  has  preferred  to  begin  the  story  of 
modern  Europe  with  the  sixteenth  century,  rather  than  with 
the  thirteenth  or  with  the  French  Revolution,  the  reader  is 
specially  referred  to  the  Introduction.  It  has  seemed  to  the 
author  that  particularly  from  the  Commercial  Revolution  of  the 
sixteenth  century  dates  the  remarkable  and  steady  evolution  of 
that  powerful  middle  class  —  the  bourgeoisie  —  which  has  done 
more  than  all  other  classes  put  together  to  condition  the  prog- 
ress of  the  several  countries  of  modern  Europe  and  to  create 
the  life  and  thought  of  the  present  generation  throughout  the 
world.  The  rise  of  the  bourgeoisie  is  the  great  central  theme  of 
modern  history ;   it  is  the  great  central  theme  of  this  book. 

Not  so  very  long  ago  distinguished  historians  were  insisting 
that  the  state,  as  the  highest  expression  of  man's  social  instincts 
and  as  the  immediate  concern  of  all  human  beings,  is  the  only 
lit  subject  of  historical  study,  and  that  history,  therefore,  must 
be  simply  "past  politics";  under  their  influence  most  text- 
books became  compendiums  of  data  about  kings  and  constitu- 
tions, about  rebellions  and  battles.  More  recently  historians  of 
repute,  as  well  as  eminent  economists,  have  given  their  attention 
and  patronage  to  painstaking  investigations  of  how,  apart  from 
state  action,  man  in  the  past  has  toiled  or  traveled  or  done  the 
other  ordinary  things  of  everyday  life ;  and  the  influence  of 
such  scholars  has  served  to  provide  us  with  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  convenient  manuals  on  special  phases  of  social  history. 
Yet  more  recently  several  writers  of  textbooks  have  endeavored 


PREFACE  vii 

to  combine  the  two  tendencies  and  to  present  in  a  single  volume 
both  political  and  social  facts,  but  it  must  be  confessed  that 
sometimes  these  writers  have  been  content  to  tell  the  old  political 
tale  in  orthodox  manner  and  then  to  appenci  a  chapter  or  two  of 
social  miscellany,  whose  connection  with  the  body  of  their  book 
is  seldom  apparent  to  the  student. 

The  present  volume  represents  an  effort  really  to  combine 
political  and  social  history  in  one  synthesis :  the  author,  quite 
convinced  of  the  importance  of  the  view  that  political  activities 
constitute  the  most  perfect  expression  of  man's  social  instincts 
and  touch  mankind  most  universally,  has  not  neglected  to  treat 
of  monarchs  and  parliaments,  of  democracy  and  nationalism ; 
at  the  same  time  he  has  cordially  accepted  the  opinion  that 
political  activities  are  determined  largely  by  economic  and  social 
needs  and  ambitions ;  and  accordingly  he  has  undertaken  not 
only  to  incorporate  at  fairly  regular  intervals  such  chapters  as 
those  on  the  Commercial  Revolution,  Society  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century,  the  Industrial  Revolution,  and  Social  Factors,  1870- 
1914,  but  also  to  show  in  every  part  of  the  narrative  the  economic 
aspects  of  the  chief  political  facts. 

Despite  the  length  of  this  book,  critics  will  undoubtedly  note 
omissions.  Confronting  the  writer  of  every  textbook  of  history 
is  the  eternal  problem  of  selection  —  the  choice  of  what  is  most 
pointedly  significant  from  the  sum  total  of  man's  thoughts, 
words,  and  deeds.  It  is  a  matter  of  personal  judgment,  and  per- 
sonal judgments  are  notoriously  variant.  Certainly  there  will 
be  critics  who  will  complain  of  the  present  author's  failure  to 
follow  up  his  suggestions  concerning  sixteenth -century  art  and 
culture  with  a  fuller  account  of  the  development  of  philosophy 
and  literature  from  the  seventeenth  to  the  twentieth  century ; 
and  the  only  rejoinders  that  the  harassed  author  can  make  are 
the  rather  lame  ones  that  a  book,  to  be  a  book,  must  conform 
to  the  mechanical  laws  of  space  and  dimension,  and  that  a 
serious  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  present  writer  to  make  a  s}ti- 
thesis  of  social  and  political  facts  precludes  no  effort  on  the  part 
of  other  and  abler  writers  to  synthesize  all  these  facts  with  the 
phenomena  which  are  conventionally  assigned  to  the  realm  of 
"cultural"  or  "intellectual"  history.  In  this,  and  in  all  other 
respects,  the  author  trusts  that  his  particular  solution  of  the 


viii  PREFACE 

vexatious  problem  of  selection  will  prove  as  generally  accept- 
able as  any. 

In  the  all-important  matter  of  accuracy,  the  author  cannot 
hope  to  have  escaped  all  the  pitfalls  that  in  a  peculiarly  broad 
and  crowded  field  everywhere  trip  the  feet  of  even  the  most 
wary  and  persistent  searchers  after  truth.  He  has  naturally 
been  forced  to  rely  for  the  truth  of  his  statements  chiefly  upon 
numerous  secondary  works,  of  which  some  acknowledgment  is 
made  in  the  following  Note,  and  upon  the  kindly  criticisms  of  a 
number  of  his  colleagues ;  in  some  instances,  notably  in  parts  of  the 
chapters  on  the  Protestant  Revolt,  the  French  Revolution,  and 
developments  since  1848  in  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Germany, 
he  has  been  able  to  draw  on  his  own  special  studies  of  primary 
source  material,  and  in  certain  of  these  instances  he  has  ventured 
to  dissent  from  opinions  that  have  been  copied  unquestion- 
ingly  from  one  work  to  another. 

No  period  of  history  can  be  more  interesting  or  illuminating 
than  the  period  with  which  this  book  is  concerned,  especially 
now,  when  a  war  of  tremendous  magnitude  and  meaning  is 
attracting  the  attention  of  the  whole  civilized  world  and  arousing 
a  desire  in  the  minds  of  all  intelligent  persons  to  know  something 
of  the  past  that  has  produced  it.  The  great  basic  causes  of  the 
present  war  the  author  has  sought,  not  in  the  ambitions  of  a 
single  power  nor  in  an  isolated  outrage,  but  in  the  history  of  four 
hundred  years.  He  has  tried  to  write  a  book  that  would  be 
suggestive  and  informing,  not  only  to  the  ordinary  college 
student,  but  to  the  more  mature  and  thoughtful  student  of 
public  affairs  in  the  university  of  the  world. 

CARLTON  J.  H.  HAYES. 
Afton,  New  York, 
May,  1916. 


NOTE   OF   ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The  author  begs  to  acknowledge  his  general  indebtedness  to 
a  veritable  host  of  historical  writers,  of  whose  original  researches 
or  secondary  compilations  he  has  constantly  and  almost  un- 
blushingly  made  use  in  the  preparation  of  this  book.  At  the 
close  of  the  Introduction  will  be  found  a  hst  of  the  major  works 
deahng  with  the  whole  period  under  review,  or  with  the  greater 
part  of  it,  which  have  been  drawn  upon  most  heavily.  And 
there  is  hardly  a  book  cited  in  any  of  the  special  bibhographies 
following  the  several  chapters  that  has  not  supplied  some  single 
fact  or  suggestion  to  the  accompanying  narrative. 

For  many  of  the  general  ideas  set  forth  in  this  work  as  well  as 
for  painstaking  assistance  in  reading  manuscript  and  correcting 
errors  of  detail,  the  author  confesses  his  debt  to  various  colleagues 
in  Columbia  University  and  elsewhere.  In  particular.  Professor 
R.  L.  Schuyler  has  helpfully  read  the  chapters  on  EngHsh  his- 
tory ;  Professor  James  T.  Shotwell,  the  chapter  on  the  Com- 
mercial Revolution;  Professor  D.  S.  Muzzey,  the  chapters  on 
the  French  Revolution,  Napoleon,  and  Metternich ;  Professor 
William  R.  Shepherd,  the  chapters  on  "National  Imperiahsm"  ; 
and  Professor  Edward  B.  Krehbiel  of  Leland  Stanford.  Junior 
University,  the  chapter  on  recent  international  relations.  Pro- 
fessor E.  F.  Humphrey  of  Trinity  College  (Connecticut)  has  given 
profitable  criticism  on  the  greater  part  of  the  text ;  and  Pro- 
fessor Charles  A.  Beard  of  Columbia  University,  Professor  Sidney 
B.  Fay  of  Smith  College,  and  Mr.  Edward  L.  Durfee  of  Yale 
University,  have  read  the  whole  work  and  suggested  several 
valuable  emendations.  Three  instructors  in  history  at  Colum- 
bia have  been  of  marked  service  —  Dr.  Austin  P.  Evans,  Mr. 
D.  R.  Fox,  and  Mr.  Parker  T.  Moon.  The  last  named  devoted 
the  chief  part  of  two  summers  to  the  task  of  preparing  notes  for 
several  chapters  of  the  book  and  he  has  attended  the  author  on 
the  long  dreary  road  of  proof  reading. 


CONTENTS 
VOLUME    I 

PART    I 

FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

PAGE 

Chapter  I.     The   Countries  of   Europe  at  the   Beginning  of  the 

Sixteenth  Century       3 

The  New  National  Monarchies 3 

The  Old  Holy  Roman  Empire 10 

The  City-States 14 

Northern  and  Eastern  Europe  in  the  year  1500        .....  20 

Chapter  II.     The  Commercial  Revolution 27 

Agriculture  in  the  Sixteenth  Century       .......  28 

Towns  on  the  Eve  of  the  Commercial  Revolution  .....  36 

Trade  Prior  to  the  Commercial  Revolution      ......  43 

The  Age  of  Exploration 49 

Establishment  of  Colonial  Empires           .......  55 

Effects  of  the  Commercial  Revolution     .......  62 

Chapter  III.     European  Politics  in  the  Sixteenth  Century  .        .  74 

The  Emperor  Charles  V .         .         .74 

Philip  II  and  the  Predominance  of  Spain         ......  87 

Chapter  IV.     The  Protestant  Revolt  and  the  Catholic  ReforxMA- 

TION 112 

The  Catholic  Church  at  the  Opening  of  the  Sixteenth  Century      .         .  112 

The  Protestant  Revolt 124 

Lutheranism ^ 130 

Calvinism           ............  139 

Anglicanism      ............  148 

The  Catholic  Reformation        .........  156 

Summary  of  the  Religious  Revolution  in  the  Sixteenth  Century     .         .  164 

Chapter  V.     The  Culture  of  the  Sixteenth  Century      .        .        .  175 

The  Invention  of  Printing         .........  177 

Humanism         ............  180 

Art  in  the  Sixteenth  Century  .........  185 

National  Literatures  in  the  Sixteenth  Century          .....  193 

Beginnings  of  Modern  Natural  Science   .......  196 


xii  CONTENTS 

PART    II 

DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY 

PACK 

Chapter    VI.     The    Growth    of    Absolutism    in    France    and   the 

Struggle  between  Bourbons  and  Habsburgs,  1589-1661        .  209 

Growth  of  Absolutism  in  France  :  Henry  IV,  Richelieu,  and  Mazarin     .  209 

Struggle  between  Bourbons  and  Habsburgs  :  The  Thirty  Years'  War    .  218 

Chapter    VII.     The    Growth   of    Absolutism    in    France   and   the 

^                   Struggle  between  Bourbons  and  Habsburgs,  1661-1743       .  235 

The  Age  of  Louis  XIV.   ..........  235 

Extension  of  French  Frontiers         ........  242 

The  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession         .......  249 

Chapter   VIII.     The  Triumph   of   Parliamentary   Government   in 

England 261 

Conflicting  Political  Tendencies  in  England  :  Absolutism  versus  Parlia- 

mentarianism     ...........  261 

The  Puritan  Revolution    ..........  274 

■     The  Restoration  :  the  Reign  of  Charles  II 281 

^~\.^         The  "  Glorious   Revolution  "  and  the   Final  Establishment  of   Parlia- 
mentary Government  in  Great  Britain 286 

Chapter  IX.     The  World  Conflict  of  France  and  Great  Britain  299 

French  and  English  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century      .         .         .  299 

Preliminary  Encounters,  1689-1748           .......  306 

The  Triumph  of  Great  Britain  :  The  Seven  Years'  War,  1756-1763        .  312 

Chapter  X.     The  Revolution  withixN  the  British  Empire        .        .  322 

The  British  Colonial  System  in  the  Eighteenth  Century          .         .         .  322 

The  War  of  American  Independence,  1775-1783    .....  332 

The  Reformation  of  the  British  Empire  .......  337 

^~-      Chapter  XI.     The  Germanies  in  the  Eighteenth  Century      .        .  342 

^v    \      The  Holy  Roman  Empire  in  Decline       .......  342 

^     The  Habsburg  Dominions        .........  344 

The  Rise  of  Prussia.     The  Hohenzollerns       ......  347 

The  Minor  German  States 352 

The  Struggle  between  Hohenzollerns  and  Habsburgs     ....  354 

Chapter  XII.     The  Rise  of  Russia,  and  the  Decline  of  Turkey, 

Sweden,  and  Poland 366 

Russia  in  the  Seventeenth  Century 366 

Peter  the  Great 369 

Sweden  and  the  Career  of  Charles  XII  .......  374 

Catherine  the  Great :  the  Defeat  of  Turkey  and  the  Dismemberment 

of  Poland 379 


CONTENTS  xiii 

PART    III 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY" 


PAGE 

395 
395 
399 
403 
406 
414 


Chapter  XIII.     European  Society  in  the  Eighteenth  Century 
Agriculture  in  the  Eigliteenth  Century    ...... 

Commerce  and  Industry  in  the  Eighteenth  Century 

The  Privileged  Classes     ......... 

Religious  and  Ecclesiastical  Conditions  in  the  Eighteenth  Century 
Scientific  and  Intellectual  Developments  in  the  Eighteenth  Century 

Chapter  XIV.     European  Governments  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  430 

The  British  Monarchy      . 430 

The  Enlightened  Despots 440 

The  French  Monarchy     . 449 

Chapter  XV.     The  French  Revolution 464 

Introductory 464 

The  End  of  Absolutism  in  France,  1789 468 

The  End  of  the   Old    Regime :   the  National   Constituent   Assembly, 

1789-1791 ....  479 

The  Limited  Monarchy  in  Operation  :  the  Legislative  Assemby  (1791— 

1792)  and  the  Outbreak  of  Foreign  War  ......  486 

Establishment  of  the  First  French  Republic  :  the  National  Convention, 

1792-1795 500 

The   Directory  (1795-1799)   and  the   Transformation  of  the   Republic 

into  a  Military  Dictatorship       ........  512 

Significance  of  the  French  Revolution .  517 

Chapter  XVI.     The  Era  of  Napoleon 523 

The  French  Republic  under  the  Consulate,  1799-1804  .         .         .523 

The  French  Empire  and  its  Territorial  Expansion           ....  534 

Destruction  of  the  French  Empire  ........  544 

Significance  of  the  Era  of  Napoleon 573 

Index  (Volume  I) 583 

VOLUME   II 

Chapter  XVII.     The  Era  of  Metternich,  1815-1830   ....  1 

Revolution  or  Reaction  ?           .........  1 

The  Congress  of  Vienna  and  the  Reconstruction  of  Europe  ...  5 

The  Bourbon  Restoration  in  France 14 

The  Bourbon  Restoration  in  Spain  ........  20 

Reaction  in  Portugal 26 

Tory  Reaction  in  Great  Britain         ........  28 


XIV 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Trial  and  Abandonment  of  Liberal  Administration  in  Russia  .         .  37 

Maintenance  of  Autocracy  in  Central  Europe  .....  41 

Failure  of  Metternich's  Policies   and   Partial   Triumph  of    Liberalism, 

1822-1830 46 


PART    IV 


DEMOCRACY   AND    NATIONALISM 

Chapter  XVIII.     The  Industrial  Revolution 67 

The  Mechanical  Inventions 69 

Economic  Effects  of  the  Industrial  Revolution         .....  75 

Capitalism  and  the  Factory  System           .......  77 

Immediate  Effects  of  the  Industrial  Revolution  upon  Politics         .         .  88 

Chapter  XIX.     Democratic  Reform  and  Revolution,  1830-1849       .  100 

Democracy  and  the  Industrial  Revolution        ......  100 

Political  and  Social  Reforms  in  Great  Britain 102 

The  Democratic  Revolution  of  1848  in  France        .....  116 
The   Revolutionary  Movements  of  1848-1849  in  Italy,  Germany,  and 

Austria-Hungary        ..........  123 

Chapter  XX.     The  Growth  of  Nationalism,  1848-1871      .         .         .  149 
Louis   Napoleon  Bonaparte  and  the  Erection  of  the   Second   French 

Empire       ............  150 

The  Political  Unification  of  Italy      ........  163 

The  Decline  of  the  Second  French  Empire,  1860-1870  .         .         .175 

The  Political  Unification  of  Germany       .......  180 

Chapter  XXI.     Social  Factors  in  Recent  European  History,  1871- 

1914 211 

"The  Era  of  the  Benevolent  Bourgeoisie,"  1871-1914    .         .         .         .212 

Christianity  and  Politics  ..........  223 

The  New  Science 230 

Christianity  and  Science 240 

The  Social  Problem  and  the  Decline  of  Laisser-Faire      ....  252 

Karl  Marx  and  Modern  Socialism    ........  253 

Anarchism  and  Syndicalism     .........  265 

Chapter  XXII.     The  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ire- 
land, 1867-1914 277 

Political  Reforms 278 

The  Government  of  the  United  Kingdom                  .....  290 

British  Political  Parties 297 

British  Social  Legislation 307 

The  Irish  Question 319 


CONTENTS 


XV 


and 


the  Repression 


Chapter  XXIII.     Latin  Europe,  1870-1914 
1.    The  Third  French  Republic 

The  Making  of  the  Repubhc 

The  Bourgeois  Character  of  the  Republic 

of  Clerical  and  Military  Opposition 
The  Political  Groups  in  France 
The  Kingdom  of  Italy 
Spain   ...... 

Portugal        ..... 

The  Kingdom  of  Belgium    . 
Chapter  XXIV.     Teutonic  Eikope,  1871-1914 
1.    The  German  Empire  ..... 

The  Constitution  and  Government  of  Germany 
The  German  Empire  under  Bismarck,  1871-189U 
The  German  Empire  under  William  II,  1890-1914      . 
The  Dual  Monarchy  of  Austria-Hungary   ...... 

The  Swiss  Confederation    ......... 

The  Kingdom  of  the  Netherlands  (Holland) 

The  Scandinavian  States  :    Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway 
Chapter  XXV.     The  Russian  E.mpire,  1855-1914  .... 

The  Reign  of  Alexander  II   (1855-1881)  :  Reforms,  Reaction,  and  the 
Rise  of  Terrorism      .......... 

The  Maintenance  of  Autocracy  and  the  Prosecution  of  "  Russification  " 
under  Alexander  III  and  Nicholas  II,  1881-1905     .... 

The  Industrial  Revolution  in  Russia  and  the  Revival  of  Opposition  to 
the  Autocracy    ........... 

The  Revolutionary  Movement  of  1905  and  the   Russian  Duma,  1905- 

1914 

Chapter   XXVI.     The    Dismemberment    of    the   Ottoman    Empire, 

1683-1914  

.  The  Ottoman  Empire  and  its  Decline,  1683-1815    ..... 
The  Great  Powers  and  the  Dismemberment  of  Turkey  in  Europe,  1815- 

1886 

The  Autonomy  of  Crete  and  Loss  of  the  Turkish  Possessions  in  Africa 
The  Progress  of  the  Balkan  Nations  and  the  Attempt  to  Rejuvenate 

Turkey,  1832-1912 

The  Balkan  Wars,  1912-1915 


PAGE 

331 
331 
331 

345 
361 
367 
378 
385 
389 
397 
397 
397 
404 
415 
426 
435 
439 
442 
452 

452 

460 

473 

478 

490 
490 

498 
509 

515 
528 


PART    V 

NATIONAL   IMPERIALISM 

Chapter  XXVII.     The  New  Imperialism  and  the  Spread  of  Euro- 
pean Civilization  in  Asia 

The  Old  Colonial  Movement  and  the  New  Imperialism 


547 
547 


xvi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

The  Partial    Dismemberment  and    the   Political    Regeneration  of  the 

Chinese  Empire         ..........  560 

The  Awakening  of  Japan 577 

Russian  Expansion  in  Asia       .........  586 

Survey  of  the  Rival  Empires  in  the  Far  East 592 

Chapter  XXVIII.     The  Spread  of  European  Civilization  in  Amer- 
ica AND  IN  Africa 600 

The  Europeanization  of  America 600 

The  Partition  of  Africa 614 

Chapter  XXIX.     The  British  Empire 640 

Self-governing  Colonies 641 

The  Crown  Colonies         ..........  657 

The  Empire  of  India 662 

Conclusion        ............  672 


Chapter  XXX.     International  Relations  (1871-1914)  and  the  Out- 
break OF  the  War  of  the  Nations  . 
The  Concert  of  Europe    ...... 

The  Hegemony  of  Germany,  1871-1890 

The  Balance  of  Power,  1890-1914    .... 

The  Outbreak  of  the  War  of  the  Nations,  1914-1915 


679 
679 
691 
697 

710 


Appendix.     Rulers  of  the  Chief  European  States  since  the  Open- 
ing of  the  Sixteenth  Century 727 

Index  (Volumes  I  and  II) 737 


MAPS 


VOLUME    I 


1.  Europe,  1500  a.d. 

2.  Medieval  Trade  Routes  and  the  Age  of  Discovery 

3.  The  Netherlands,  1609      .... 

4.  Religious  Divisions  in  Europe,  1600 

5.  The  Germanies,  1648 

6.  Extension  of  French  Frontiers,  1648-1697 

7.  England  and  Wales,  1643.     The  Civil  War 

8.  European  Colonies  in  North  America,  168S 

9.  India  in  the  Eighteenth  Century 

10.  The  Thirteen  Colonies,  1774    . 

11.  Rise  of  Prussia  to  1786     . 

12.  Russian  Expansion  to  1796 

13.  Partition  of  Poland,  1772- 1795 

14.  Europe,  1775         .... 

15.  Revolutionary  France,  i 789-1 795 

16.  The  Italian  States,  1806  . 

17.  The  Germanies,  1807-1809. 

18.  Europe  under  Napoleon,  1810  . 


PRECEDING 
PAGE 

3 

49 

97 

165 

229 

249 

273 
301 

317 
331 
351 
369 
?>^7 
441 

479 
543 
543 
559 


VOLUME   II 


Europe,  1815 

The  Italian  States,  1856 

The  Germanies,  181 5-1866  ..... 

Europe,  1871 

Central  Europe,  1914  —  Social  and  Economic 
England  and  Wales  in  the  Nineteenth  Century 


165 
181 
211 
215 
277 


xvm 


MAPS 


PRECEDING 
PAGE 


25.  Ireland  in  the  Nineteenth  Century       .... 

26.  The  ''Nations"  of  Europe  in  the  Nineteenth  Century 

27.  Germany,  1871-1914 

28.  Austria-Hungary.  1914 

29.  The  Russian  Empire,  1914 

30.  The  Ottoman  Empire,  1683-1800 

31.  The  Balkan  States,  1856-1912 
32  The  Ottoman  Empire  and  the  Balkan  States,  1914 

33.  Asia,  1914 

34.  South  America,  1914  . 

35.  Africa,  1914  .... 

36.  The  British  Empire,  1914  . 

37.  Colonial  Dominions  of  the  Great  Po\vers  of  Europe,  i 

38.  The  Mediterranean  Countries,  1914        .... 


914 


321 

33' 
397 
427 
467 
491 
507 

535 
561 
607 
62s 
641 
701 
717 


INTRODUCTION 

The  story  of  modern  times  is  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  long 
epic  of  human  history.  If,  as  seems  highly  probable,  the  con- 
servative estimates  of  recent  scientists  that  mankind  has  in- 
habited the  earth  more  than  fifty  thousand  years,^  are  accurate, 
then  the  bare  five  hundred  years  which  these  volumes  pass  in 
review  constitute,  in  time,  less  than  a  hundredth  part  of  man's 
past.  Certainly,  thousands  of  years  before  our  day  there  were 
empires  and  kingdoms  and  city-states,  showing  considerable 
advancement  in  those  intellectual  pursuits  which  we  call  civili- 
zation or  culture,  —  that  is,  in  religion,  learning,  literature,  po- 
litical organization,  and  business ;  and  such  basic  institutions  as 
the  family,  the  state,  and  society,  go  back  even  further,  past  our 
earliest  records,  until  their  origins  are  shrouded  in  deepest 
mystery. 

Despite  its  brevity,  modern  history  is  of  supreme  impor- 
tance. Within  its  comparatively  brief  limits  are  set  greater 
changes  in  human  life  and  action  than  are  to  be  found  in  the 
records  of  any  earlier  millennium.  While  the  present  is  condi- 
tioned in  part  by  the  deeds  and  thoughts  of  our  distant  forbears 
who  lived  thousands  of  years  ago,  it  has  been  influenced  in  a 
very  special  way  by  historical  events  of  the  last  five  hundred 
years.     Let  us  see  how  this  is  true. 

Suppose  we  ask  ourselves  in  what  important  respects  the  year 
1900  differed  from  the  year  1400.  In  other  words,  what  are  the 
great  distinguishing  achievements  of  modern  times?  At  least 
six  may  be  noted  : 

(i)  Exploration  and  knowledge  of  the  whole  globe.  To  our 
ancestors  from  time  out  of  mind  the  civilized  world  was  but  the 
lands  adjacent  to  the  Mediterranean  and,  at  most,  vague  stretches 
of  Persia,   India,   and   China.     Not  much   over  four  hundred 

1  Professor  James  Geikie,  of  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  suggests  in  his 
Antiquity  of  Man  in  Europe  (1914),  the  possible  existence  of  human  beings  on  the 
earth  more  than  500,000  years  ago ! 

xix 


XX  INTRODUCTION 

years  ago  was  America  discovered  and  the  globe  circumnavigated 
for  the  first  time,  and  very  recently  has  the  use  of  steamship, 
telegraph,  and  railway  served  to  bind  together  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  world,  thereby  making  it  relatively  smaller,  less 
mysterious,  and  in  culture  more  unified. 

(2)  Higher  standards  of  individual  efficiency  and  comfort.  The 
physical  welfare  of  the  individual  has  been  promoted  to  a  greater 
degree,  or  at  all  events  preached  more  eloquently,  within  the 
last  few  generations  than  ever  before.  This  has  doubtless  been 
due  to  changes  in  the  commonplace  everyday  life  of  all  the  people. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  in  the  fifteenth  century  man  did 
the  ordinary  things  of  life  in  much  the  same  manner  as  did  early 
Romans  or  Greeks  or  Egj'ptians,  and  that  our  present  remark- 
able ways  of  living,  of  working,  and  of  traveling  are  the  direct 
outcome  of  the  Commercial  Revolution  of  the  sixteenth  century 
and  of  the  Industrial  Revolution  of  the  nineteenth. 

(3)  Intensification  of  political  organization,  with  attendant  pub- 
lic guarantees  of  personal  liberties.  The  ideas  of  nationalism  and 
of  democracy  are  essentially  modern  in  their  expression.  The 
notion  that  people  who  speak  the  same  language  and  have  a 
common  culture  should  be  organized  as  an  independent  state 
with  uniform  laws  and  customs  was  hardly  held  prior  to  the 
fifteenth  century.  The  national  states  of  England,  France,  and 
Spain  did  not  appear  unmistakably  with  their  national  bound- 
aries, national  consciousness,  national  literature,  until  the  open- 
ing of  the  sixteenth  century;  and  it  was  long  afterwards  that 
in  Italy  and  Germany  the  national  idea  supplanted  the  older 
notions  of  world  empire  or  of  city-state  or  of  feudalism.  The 
national  state  has  proved  everywhere  a  far  more  powerful  pohti- 
cal  organization  than  any  other :  its  functions  have  steadily 
increased,  now  at  the  expense  of  feudalism,  now  at  the  expense 
of  the  church ;  and  such  increase  has  been  as  constant  under 
industrial  democracy  of  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries 
as  under  the  benevolent  despotism  of  the  seventeenth  and  eight- 
eenth centuries.  But  in  measure  as  government  has  enlarged 
its  scope,  the  governed  have  worked  out  and  apphed  protective 
principles  of  personal  liberties.  The  Puritan  Revolution,  the 
French  Revolution,  the  American  Revolution,  the  uprisings  of 
oppressed  populations  throughout  the  nineteenth  century,  would 


INTRODUCTION  xxi 

be  quite  inexplicable  in  other  than  modern  times.  In  fact  the 
whole  political  history  of  the  last  four  centuries  is  in  essence  a 
series  of  compromises  between  the  conflicting  results  of  the 
modern  exaltation  of  the  state  and  the  modern  exaltation  of  the 
individual. 

(4)  Replacement  of  the  idea  of  the  necessity  of  imiformity  in  a 
definite  faith  and  religion  by  toleration  of  many  faiths  or  even  of  no 
faith.  A  great  state  rehgion,  professed  publicly,  and  financially 
supported  by  all  the  citizens,  has  been  a  distinguishing  mark  of 
every  earlier  age.  Whatever  else  may  be  thought  of  the  Protes- 
tant movement  of  the  sixteenth  century,  of  the  rise  of  deism  and 
skepticism  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth,  and  of  the  exist- 
ence of  scientific  rationalism  in  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  each  of  them  has  contributed  its 
share  to  the  prevalence  of  the  idea  that  religion  is  essentially  a 
private,  not  a  public,  affair  and  that  friendly  rivalry  in  good 
works  is  preferable  to  uniformity  in  faith. 

(5)  Difusion  of  learning.  The  invention  of  printing  towards 
the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century  gradually  revolutionized  the 
pursuit  of  knowledge  and  created  a  real  democracy  of  Jetters. 
What  learning  might  have  lost  in  depth  through  its  marvelous 
broadening  has  perhaps  been  compensated  for  by  the  applica- 
tion of  the  keenest  minds  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen- 
turies to  experimental  science  a,nd  in  our  own  day  to  applied 
science. 

(6)  Spirit  of  progress  and  decline  of  conservatism.  For  better 
or  for  worse  the  modern  man  is  intellectually  more  self-reliant 
than  his  ancestors,  more  prone  to  try  new  inventions  and  to 
profit  by  new  discoveries,  more  conscious  and  therefore  more 
critical  of  conditions  about  him,  more  con\dnced  that  he  lives 
in  a  better  world  than  did  his  fathers,  and  that  his  children  who 
come  after  him  should  have  a  better  chance  than  he  has  had. 
This  is  the  modern  spirit.  It  is  the  product  of  all  the  other 
elements  of  the  history  of  five  hundred  years  —  the  larger  geo- 
graphical horizon,  the  greater  physical  comfort,  the  revolu- 
tionized political  institutions,  the  broader  sympathies,  the  newer 
ideals  of  education.  Springing  thus  from  events  of  the  past  few 
centuries,  the  modern  spirit  nevertheless  looks  ever  forward,  not 
backward.     A  debtor  to  the  past,  it  will  be  doubly  creditor  to 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

the  future.  It  will  determine  the  t>'pe  of  individual  and  social 
betterment  through  coming  centuries.  Such  an  idea  is  implied 
in  the  phrase,  ''the  continuity  of  history"  —  the  ever-flowing 
stream  of  happenings  that  brings  down  to  us  the  heritage  of  past 
ages  and  that  carries  on  our  richer  legacies  to  generations  yet 
unborn. 

From  such  a  conception  of  the  continuity  of  history,  the  real 
significance  of  our  study  can  be  derived.  It  becomes  perfectly 
clear  that  if  we  understand  the  present  we  shall  be  better  pre- 
pared to  face  the  problems  and  difficulties  of  the  future.  But 
to  understand  the  present  thoroughly,  it  becomes  necessary  not 
only  to  learn  what  are  its  great  features  and  tendencies,  but  hke- 
wise  how  they  have  been  evolved.  Now,  as  we  have  already 
remarked,  six  most  important  characteristics  of  the  present 
day  have  been  developed  within  the  last  four  or  five  centuries. 
To  follow  the  history  of  this  period,  therefore,  will  tend  to 
famiharize  us  both  with  present-day  conditions  and  with  future 
needs.  This  is  the  genuine  justification  for  the  study  of  the 
history  of  modern  times. 

Modern  history  may  conveniently  be  defined  as  that  part  of 
history  which  deals  with  the  origin  and  evolution  of  the  great 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  present.  No  precise  dates 
can  be  assigned  to  modern  history  as  contrasted  with  what  has 
commonly  been  called  ancient  or  medieval.  In  a  sense,  any 
division  of  the  historical  stream  into  parts  or  periods  is  funda- 
mentally fallacious  :  for  example,  inasmuch  as  the  present  genera- 
tion owes  to  the  Greeks  of  the  fourth  century  before  Christ 
many  of  its  artistic  models  and  philosophical  ideas  and  very  few 
of  its  political  theories,  the  former  might  plausibly  be  embraced 
in  the  field  of  modern  history,  the  latter  excluded  therefrom. 
But  the  problem  before  us  is  not  so  difficult  as  may  seem  on 
first  thought.  To  all  intents  and  purposes  the  development  of 
the  six  characteristics  that  have  been  noted  has  taken  place 
within  five  hundred  years.  The  sixteenth  century  witnessed 
the  true  beginnings  of  the  change  in  the  extensive  world  dis- 
coveries, in  the  establishment  of  a  recognized  European  state 
system,  in  the  rise  of  Protestantism,  and  in  the  quickening  of 
intellectual  activity.     It  is  the  foundation  of  modern  Europe. 


INTRODUCTION  xxiii 

The  sixteenth  century  will  therefore  be  the  general  subject 
of  Part  I  of  this  volume.  After  reviewing  the  geography  of 
Europe  about  the  year  1500,  we  shall  take  up  in  turn  the  four 
factors  of  the  century  which  have  had  a  lasting  influence  upon 
us:  (i)  socially  and  economically  —  The  Commercial  Revolu- 
tion ;  (2)  politically  —  European  Politics  in  the  Sixteenth  Cen- 
tury ;  (3)  religiously  and  ecclesiastically  —  The  Protestant  Re- 
volt ;   (4)  intellectually  —  The  Culture  of  the  Sixteenth  Century. 


ADDITIONAL  READING 

The  Study  of  History.  On  historical  method :  C.  \ .  Langlois  and 
Charles  Seignobos,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  History,  trans,  by  G.  G. 
Berry  (1912);  J.  M.  Vincent,  Historical  Research:  an  Outline  of  Theory 
and  Practice  (191 1);  H.  B.  George,  Historical  Evidence  (1909);  F.  M. 
Fling,  Outline  of  Historical  Method  (1899).  Different  view's  of  history: 
J.  H.  Robinson,  The  New  History  (191 2),  a  collection  of  stimulating  essays; 
J.  T.  Shotwell,  suggestive  article  History  in  nth  edition  of  Encyclopcedia 
Britannica;  T.  B.  Macaulay,  essay  on  History;  Thomas  Carlyle,  Heroes 
and  Hero  Worship;  Karl  Lamprecht,  What  is  History  ?  trans,  by  E.  A. 
Andrews  (1905).  Also  see  Henry  Johnson,  The  Teaching  of  History  (191 5) ; 
Eduard  Fueter,  Geschichte  der  neiieren  Historiographie  (191 1);  Ernst 
Bernheim,  Lehrbuch  der  historischen  Methode  und  der  Geschichtsphilosophie, 
6th  ed.  (1914);  G.  P.  Gooch,  History  and  Historians  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century  (19 13). 

Textbooks  and  Manuals  of  Modern  History.  J.  H.  Robinson  and 
C.  A.  Beard,  The  Development  of  Modern  Europe,  2  vols.  (1907),  a  political 
and  social  narrative  from  the  time  of  Louis  XIV,  and  by  the  same  authors, 
Readings  in  Modern  European  History,  2  vols.  (1908-1909),  an  indispensable 
sourcebook,  with  critical  bibliographies;  Ferdinand  Schevill,  A  Political 
History  of  Modern  Europe  from  the  Reformation  to  the  Present  Day  (1907) ; 
T.  H.  Dyer,  A  History  of  Modern  Europe  from  the  Fall  of  Constantinople, 
3d  ed.  revised  and  continued  to  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  by 
Arthur  Hassall,  6  vols.  (1901),  somewhat  antiquated  but  still  valuable 
for  its  vast  store  of  political  facts  ;  Victor  Duruy,  History  of  Modern  Times 
from  the  Fall  of  Constantinople  to  the  French  Revolution,  trans,  by  E.  A. 
Grosvenor  (1894),  verbose  and  somewhat  uncritical,  but  usable  for  French 
history.  More  up-to-date  series  of  .historical  manuals  are  now  appearing 
or  are  projected  by  Henry  Holt  and  Company  under  the  editorship  of 
Professor  C.  H.  Haskins,  by  The  Century  Company  under  Professor  G.  L. 
Burr,  by  Ginn  and  Company  under  Professor  J.  H.  Robinson,  and  by 
Houghton  MifiPiin  Company  under  Professor  J.  T.  Shotwell :  such  of  these 
volumes  as  have  appeared  are  noted  in  the  appropriate  chapter  bibliog- 
raphies following.      The  ]\Iacmillan    Company  has   published  Periods  of 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION 

European  History,  8  vols.  (1893-1901),  under  the  editorship  of  Arthur 
Hassall,  of  which  the  last  five  volumes  treat  of  political  Europe  from  1494 
to  1899;  and  a  more  elementary  pohtical  series,  Six  Ages  of  European 
History,  6  vols.  (1910),  under  the  editorship  of  A.  H.  Johnson,  of  which 
the  last  three  volumes  cover  the  years  from  1453  to  1878.  Much  addi- 
tional information  is  obtainable  from  such  popular  series  as  Story  of  the 
Nations  (1886  sqq.).  Heroes  of  the  Nations  (1890  sqq.),  and  Home  Uni- 
versity Library,  though  the  volumes  in  such  series  are  of  very  unequal 
merit.  Convenient  chronological  summaries  are :  G.  P.  and  G.  H.  Put- 
nam, Tabular  Views  of  Universal  History  (1914) ;  Carl  Ploetz,  Manual  of 
Universal  History,  trans,  and  enlarged  by  W.  H.  Tillinghast,  new  edition 
(1915);  Haydn's  Dictionary  of  Dates,  25th  ed.  (1911);  C.  E.  Little, 
Cyclopcedia  of  Classified  Dates  (1900) ;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol. 
XIII  (191 1).  The  best  atlas  —  a  vitally  necessary  adjunct  of  historical 
study  —  is  either  that  of  W.  R.  Shepherd,  Historical  Atlas  (191 1),  or 
that  of  Ramsay  Muir,  Hammond's  New  Historical  Atlas  for  Students, 
2d  ed.  (1915) ;  a  smaller  historical  atlas  is  that  of  E.  W.  Dow  (1907), 
and  longer  ones  are  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  XIV  (191 2)  and,  in 
German,  Putzger,  Historischer  Schidatlas.  Elaborate  treatises  on  his- 
torical geography :  Elisee  Reclus,  The  Universal  Geography,  trans,  and 
ed.  by  E.  G.  Ravenstein,  19  vols. ;  Nouveau  Dictionnaire  de  Geographic 
Universelle,  by  Vivien  de  Saint-Martin  and  Louis  Rousselet,  10  vols.  See 
also  H.  B.  George,  The  Relations  of  Geography  and  History  (1910)  and 
Ellen  C.  Semple,  The  Influence  of  Geographic  Environment  (191 1). 

Standard  Secondary  "Works  and  Sets  on  Modern  History.  The  Cam- 
bridge Modern  History,  12  vols,  and  2  supplementary  vols.  (1902-1912), 
planned  by  Lord  Acton,  edited  by  A.  W.  Ward,  G.  W.  Prothero,  and  Stanley 
Leathes,  written  by  EngHsh  scholars,  covering  the  period  from  1450  to 
1910,  generally  sound  but  rather  narrowly  political.  Better  balanced  is 
the  monumental  work  of  a  group  of  French  scholars,  Histoire  generate  du 
IV^  siecle  a  nos  jours,  edited  by  Ernest  Lavisse  and  Alfred  Rambaud, 
12  vols.  (1894-1901),  of  which  the  last  nine  treat  of  the  years  from  1492 
to  1900.  For  social  history  a  series,  Histoire  universelle  du  travail,  12  vols., 
is  projected  under  the  editorship  of  Georges  Renard.  The  Encyclopcedia 
Britannica,  nth  ed.  (1910-1911),  is  the  work  mainly  of  distinguished 
scholars  and  a  storehouse  of  historical  information,  political,  social,  and 
intellectual.  Also  available  in  English  is  History  of  All  Nations,  24  vols. 
(1902),  the  first  nineteen  based  on  translation  of  Theodor  Flathe,  Allgc- 
meine  Weltgcschichtc,  —  Vols.  X-XXIV  dealing  with  modern  history,  — 
Vol.  XX,  on  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa  since  187 1,  by  C.  M.  Andrews,  and 
Vols.  XXI-XXIII,  on  American  history,  by  John  Fiske ;  likewise  H.  F. 
Helmolt  (editor),  Weltgeschichtc,  trans,  into  EngHsh,  8  vols.  (1902-1907). 
Sets  and  series  in  German  :  Wilhelm  Oncken  (editor),  Allgemcinc  Gcschichtc 
in  Einzeldarstelhingen,  50  vols.  (1879-1893) ;  Geschichte  der  europdischen 
Staaten,  an  enormous  collection,  appearing  more  or  less  constantly  from 
1829  to  the  present  and  edited  successively  by  such  famous  scholars  as 
A.  H.  L.  Heercn,  F.  A.  Ukert,  Wilhelm  von  Giesebrcchl,  and  Karl  Lam- 


INTRODUCTION  xxv 

precht ;  G.  von  Below  and  F.  IMcinecke  (editors),  Handbuch  der  viiitel- 
alterlichen  iind  ncuercn  Geschichlc,  a  series  begun  in  1903  and  planned,  when 
completed,  to  comprise  40  vols.;  Paul  Hinneberg  (editor).  Die  Kultur 
der  Gegcnwart,  ihre  E)itwicklung  und  Hire  Zicle,  a  remarkable  series  begun 
in  1906  and  intended  to  explain  in  many  volumes  the  civilization  of  the 
twentieth  century  in  all  its  aspects  ;  Erich  Brandenburg  (editor),  Bibliothek 
der  Geschichtswissejischaft,  a  series  recently  projected,  the  first  volume 
appearing  in  191 2  ;  J.  von  Pflugk-Harttung,  W eltgcschichte :  die  Entwicklung 
der  Menschheit  in  Steal  und  Gcsellschajt,  in  Kultur  und  Geistesleben,  6  vols, 
illust.  (1908-1911) ;  Theodor  Lindner,  W eltgcschichte  seit  der  V olkcrwan- 
derung,  8  vols.  (1908-1914).  \'aluable  contributions  to  general  modern 
history  occur  in  such  monumental  national  histories  as  Karl  Lamprecht, 
Deutsche  Gesckichte,  12  vols,  in  16  (1891-1909),  and,  more  particularly, 
Ernest  Lavisse  (editor),  Histoire  de  France  depuis  Ics  origines  jnsqu'd  la 
Revolution,  9  double  vols.  (1900-1911). 

Biographical  Dictionaries.  General:  Encyclopcedia  Britannica,  iithed., 
29  vols.  (1910-1911);  New  International  Encyclopcedia,  2d  ed.,  24  vols. 
(1914-1916) ;  Catholic  Encyclopcedia,  15  vols.  (1907-1912).  Great  Britain  : 
Leslie  Stephen  and  Sidney  Lee  (editors).  Dictionary  of  National  Biography, 
72  vols.  (1885-1913).  France:  Hoefer  (editor),  Nouvelle  biographic 
generate,  46  vols.  (1855-1866)  ;  Dictionnairc  de  biographie  Jranqaise,  pro- 
jected (1913)  under  editorship  of  Louis  Didier,  Albert  Isnard,  and  Gabriel 
Ledos.  Germany:  Liliencron  and  Wegele  (editors),  Allgenieine  dcutsche 
Biographie,  54  vols.  (1875  sqq.).  Austria-Hungary:  Wurzbach  (editor), 
Biographisches  Lexikon  des  Kaiserthums  Oesterreich,  60  vols.  (1856-1891). 
There  is  also  a  well-known  French  work  —  L.  G.  Michaud,  Biographie 
universelle  ancienne  et  moderne,  45  vols.  (1880). 

Bibliography.  Many  of  the  works  cited  above  and  most  of  the  works 
mentioned  in  the  following  chapter  bibliographies  contain  convenient 
bibliographies  on  special  topics.  The  best  general  guide  to  collections  of 
source  material  and  to  the  organization  of  historical  study  and  research, 
though  already  somewhat  out-of-date,  is  C.  V.  Langlois,  Manuel  de  bibli- 
ographic historique,  2  vols.  (1901-1904).  See  also  C.  M.  Andrews,  J.  M. 
Gambrill,  and  Lida  Tall,  A  Bibliography  of  History  for  Schools  and  Libraries 
(1910) ;  and  C.  K.  Adams,  A  Manual  of  Historical  Literature,  3d  ed. 
(1889).  Specifically,  for  Great  Britain:  W.  P.  Courtney,  A  Register  of 
National  Bibliography,  3  vols.  (1905-1912) ;  S.  R.  Gardiner  and  J.  B. 
MuUinger,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  English  History,  4th  ed.  (1903) ; 
H.  G.  Cannon,  A  Guide  to  the  Study  and  Reading  of  English  History  (1910) ; 
Bibliography  of  Modern  English  History,  now  (1916)  in  preparation  under 
the  auspices  of  English  scholars  and  of  the  American  Historical  Association. 
For  German  bibliography:  Dahlmann-Waitz,  Quellenkiinde  der  dcutschen 
Geschichte,  8th  ed.  (191 2) ;  J ahresberichte  der  Geschichtswissenschaft,  a 
valuable  annual  publication  issued  under  the  auspices  of  the  Historical 
Association  of  Berlin.  For  French  bibliography:  Gabriel  Monod,  Bibli- 
ographie  de  Vhistoire  de  France  (1888),  new  ed.  projected  (1910)  in  4  vols.; 
Manuels  de  bibliographic  historique  (1907-19 16) :    Part  II,  1494-1610,  by 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION 

Henri  Hauser,  Part  III,  idio-iyis,  by  Emile  Bourgeois  and  Louis  Andre ; 
Repertoire  metliodique  de  I'Jiistoire  moderne  et  contemporaine  de  la  France, 
an  annual  publication  edited  by  Briere  and  Caron.  For  American  bibliog- 
raphy: Edward  Channing,  A.  B.  Hart,  and  F.  J.  Turner,  Guide  to  the 
Study  of  American  History  (1912).  Among  important  historical  periodicals, 
containing  bibliographical  notes  and  book  reviews,  are,  History  Teacher's 
Magazine,  The  American  Historical  Review,  The  English  Historical  Re- 
view, Die  historische  Zeitschrift,  Revue  d'histoire  moderne  et  contemporaine, 
La  revue  historique,  and  La  revue  des  questions  historiques.  For  periodical 
literature  see  Poole's  Index  (1802-1906)  and  Readers'  Guide  (1900  sqq.). 
The  most  famous  lists  of  pubUshed  books  are :  The  American  Catalogue 
(1876  sqq.) ;  the  English  Catalogue  (1835  sqq.)  ;  C.  G.  Kayser,  Biicher- 
Lexikon  (iTSo  sqq.) ;  WiYhdm  Heinsius,,  Biicher'-Lexikon  (i 700-1 892)  ;  Otto 
Lorenz,  Catalogue  general  de  la  librarie  Jranqaise  (1840  sqq.)  ;  and,  for 
general  comment,  American  Library  Association,  Index  to  General  Litera- 
ture (1893  sqq.). 


PART   I 
FOUNDATIONS   OF  MODERN  EUROPE 


CHAPTER   I 

THE    COUNTRIES    OF   EUROPE    AT    THE    OPENING    OF   THE 
SIXTEENTH    CENTURY 

I.   THE   NEW   NATIONAL  MONARCHIES 

Before  we   can   safely  proceed  with  the  story  of  European 
development  during  the  past  four  hundred  years,  it  is  necessary 
to  know  what  were  the  chief  countries  that  existed  ,       . 
at  the  beginning  of  our  period  and  what  were  the  Monar- 
distinctive  political  institutions  of  each.  ^^'^^ "  ^° 

A  glance  at  the  map  of  Europe  in  1500  will  show 
numerous  unfamiliar  divisions  and  names,  especially  in  the  central 
and  eastern  portions.  ;  Only  in  the  extreme  west,  along  the 
Atlantic  seaboard,  will  the  eye  detect  geographical  boundaries 
which  resemble  those  of  the  present  day.  There,  England, 
France,  Spain,  and  Portugal  have  already  taken  formj  In  each 
one  of  these  countries  is  a  real  nation,  with  a  single  monarch, 
and  with  a  distinctive  literary  language.  These  four  states  are 
the  national  states  of  the  sixteenth  century.  They  attract  our 
immediate  attention. 

England 

In  the  year  1500  the  English  monarchy  embraced  little 
more  than  what  on  the  map  is  now  called  "England."  It  is 
true  that  to  the  west  the  principality  of  Wales  had  The  English 
been  incorporated  two  hundred  years  earlier,  but  the  Monarchy 
clannish  mountaineers  and  hardy  lowlanders  of  the  northern 
part  of  the  island  of  Great  Britain  still  preserved  the  independ- 
ence of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  while  Irish  princes  and  chief- 
tains rendered  English  occupation  of  their  island  extremely 
precarious  beyond  the  so-called  Pale  of  Dublin  which  an  Eng- 
lish king  had  conquered  in  the  twelfth  century.     Across  the 

3 


4  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

English  Channel,  on  the  Continent,  the  English  monarchy  re- 
tained after  1453,  the  date  of  the  conclusion  of  the  Hundred 
Years'  War,  only  the  town  of  Calais  out  of  the  many  rich  French 
provinces  which  ever  since  the  time  of  William  the  Conqueror 
(1066-1087)  had  been  a  bone  of  contention  between  French  and 
EngHsh  rulers. 

While  the  English  monarchy  was  assuming  its  geographical 
form,  peculiar  national  institutions  were  taking  root  in  the 
country,  and  the  English  language,  as  a  combination  of  earlier 
Anglo-Saxon  and  Norman-French,  was  being  evolved.  /  The 
Hundred  Years'  War  with  France,  or  rather  its  outcome,  served 
to  exalt  the  sense  of  English  nationality  and  English  patriotism, 
and  to  enable  the  king  to  devote  his  whole  attention  to  the  con- 
solidation of  his  power  in  the  British  islands/j  For  several  years 
after  the  conclusion  of  peace  on  the  Continent,  England  was 
harassed  by  bloody  and  confused  struggles,  known  as  the  Wars 
of  the  Roses,  between  rival  claimants  to  the  throne,  but  at  length, 
in  1485,  Henry  VII,  the  first  of  the  Tudor  dynasty,  secured  the 
crown  and  ushered  in  a  new  era  of  English  history. 

Henry  VII  (1485-1509)  sought  to  create  what  has  been  termed 
a  "strong  monarchy."  Traditionally  the  power  of  the  king 
had  been  restricted  by  a  Parliament,  composed  of  a 
RoyarPower  House  of  Lords  and  a  House  of  Commons,  and  as  the 
in  England  former  was  then  far  more  influential  than  the  latter, 
Henry  VII  supreme  political  control  had  rested  practically  with 
the  king  and  the  members  of  the  upper  house  —  great 
land-holding  nobles  and  the  princes  of  the  church.  The  Wars  of 
the  Roses  had  two  effects  which  redounded  to  the  advantage  of 
the  king :  (i)  the  struggle,  being  really  a  contest  of  two  factions 
of  nobles,  destroyed  many  noble  families  and  enabled  the  crown 
to  seize  their  estates,  thereby  lessening  the  influence  of  an 
ancient  class;  (2)  the  struggle,  being  long  and  disorderly,  cre- 
ated in  the  middle  class  or  "common  people"  a  longing  for 
peace  and  the  conviction  that  order  and  security  could  be  main- 
tained only  by  repression  of  the  nobility  and  the  strengthening 
of  monarchy.  Henry  took  advantage  of  these  circumstances  to 
fix  upon  his  country  an  absolutism,  or  one-man  power  in  gov- 
ernment, which  was  to  endure  throughout  the  sixteenth  century, 
during  the  reigns  of  the  four  other  members  of  the  Tudor  family, 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  5 

and,    in    fact,    until    a  popular  revolution  in  the   seventeenth 
century. 

Henry  VII  repressed  disorder  with  a  heavy  hand  and  secured 
the  establishment  of  an  extraordinary  court,  afterwards  called 
the  "Court  of  Star  Chamber,"  to  hear  cases,  especially  those 
affecting  the  nobles,  which  the  ordinary  courts  had  not  been 
able  to  settle.  Then,  too,  he  was  very  economical :  the  public 
revenue  was  increased  by  means  of  more  careful  attention  to 
the  cultivation  of  the  crown  lands  and  the  collection  of  feudal 
dues,  fines,  benevolences/  import  and  export  duties,  and  past 
parHamentary  grants,  while,  by  means  of  frugality  and  a  foreign 
policy  of  peace,  the  expenditure  was  appreciably  decreased. 
Henry  VII  was  thereby  freed  in  large  measure  from  dependence 
on  Parhament  for  grants  of  money,  and  the  power  of  Parliament 
naturally  declined.  In  fact,  Parhament  met  only  live  times 
during  his  whole  reign  and  only  once  during  the  last  twelve 
years,  and  in  all  its  actions  was  quite  subservient  to  the  royal 
desires. 

Henry  VII  refrained  in  general  from  foreign  war,  but  sought 
by  other  means  to  promote  the  international  welfare  of  his  coun- 
try.    He  negotiated  several  treaties  by  which  English 
traders  might  buy  and  sell  goods  in  other  countries.   RgiaJf^ns 
One  of  the  most  famous  of  these  commercial  treaties  of  England 
was  the  Intercursus  Magnus  concluded  in  1496  with  n'enry  vii 
the  duke  of  Burgundy,  admitting  English  goods  into 
the  Netherlands.     He  likewise  encouraged  EngKsh  companies 
of  merchants  to  engage  in  foreign  trade  and  commissioned  the 
explorations  of  the  Cabots  in  the  New  World.     Henry  increased 
the  prestige   of    his  house  by  politic    marital    alliances.      He 
arranged  a  marriage  between  the  heir  to  his  throne,  Arthur, 
and  Catherine,  eldest  daughter  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  the 
Spanish  sovereigns.     Arthur  died  a  few  months  after  his  wedding, 
but  it  was  arranged  that  Catherine  should  remain  in  England 
as  the  bride  of  the  king's  second  son,  who  subsequently  became 

^  "Benevolences"  were  sums  of  money  extorted  from  the  people  in  the  guise  of 
gifts.  A  celebrated  minister  of  Henry  VII  collected  a  very  large  number  of  "be- 
nevolences" for  his  master.  If  a  man  lived  economically,  it  was  reasoned  he  was 
saving  money  and  could  afford  a  "present"  for  the  king.  If,  on  the  contrary,  he 
lived  sumptuously,  he  was  evidently  wealthy  and  could  likewise  afford  a  "gift." 


6  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Henry  VIII.  The  king's  daughter  Margaret  was  married  to 
King  James  IV  of  Scotland,  thereby  paving  the  way  much  later 
for  the  union  of  the  crowns  of  England  and  Scotland. 

England  in  the  year  1500  was  a  real  national  monarchy, 
and  the  power  of  the  king  appeared  to  be  distinctly  in  the  ascend- 
ant. Parliament  was  fast  becoming  a  purely  formal  and  per- 
functory body. 

France 

By  the  year  1500  the  French  monarchy  was  largely  consolidated 
territorially  and  politically.  It  had  been  a  slow  and  painful 
The  French  process,  for  long  ago  in  987,  when  Hugh  Capet  came 
Monarchy  |-q  i\^q  throne,  the  France  of  his  day  was  hardly 
more  than  the  neighborhood  of  Paris,  and  it  had  taken  five  full 
centuries  to  unite  the  petty  feudal  divisions  of  the  country  into 
the  great  centralized  state  which  we  call  France.  The  Hundred 
Years'  War  had  finally  freed  the  western  duchies  and  counties 
from  English  control.  Just  before  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth 
century  the  wily  and  tactful  Louis  XI  (1461-1483)  had  rounded 
out  French  territories :  on  the  east  he  had  occupied  the  pow- 
erful duchy  of  Burgundy ;  on  the  west  and  on  the  southeast  he 
had  possessed  himself  of  most  of  the  great  inheritance  of  the 
Angevin  branch  of  his  own  family,  including  Anjou,  and  Pro- 
vence east  of  the  Rhone ;  and  on  the  south  the  French  frontier  had 
been  carried  to  the  Pyrenees.  Finally,  Louis's  son,  Charles  VIII 
|.  (1483-1498),  by  marrying  the  heiress  of  Brittany,  had  absorbed 
that  western  duchy  into  France. 

Meanwhile,  centralized  political  institutions  had  been  taking 
slow  but  tenacious  root  in  the  country.  Of  course,  many  local 
institutions  and  customs  survived  in  the  various 
Growth  of  states  which  had  been  gradually  added  to  France, 
Royal  but  the  king  was  now  recognized  from  Flanders  to 

in°Fr^ance  Spain  and  from  the  Rhone  to  the  Ocean  as  the  source 
of  law,  justice,  and  order.  There  was  a  uniform  royal 
coinage  and  a  standing  army  under  the  king's  command.  The 
monarchs  had  struggled  valiantly  against  the  disruptive  tend- 
encies of  feudalism ;  they  had  been  aided  by  the  commoners 
or  middle  class ;  and  the  proof  of  their  success  was  their  compara- 
tive freedom  from  political  checks.     The  Estates-General,   to 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  7 

which  French  commoners  had  been  admitted  in  1302,  resembled 
in  certain  externals  the  English  Parliament,  —  for  example,  in 
comprising  representatives  of  the  clergy,  nobles,  and  commons, 
—  but  it  had  never  had  final  say  in  levying  taxes  or  in  authoriz- 
ing expenditures  or  in  trying  royal  officers.  And  unlike  Eng- 
land, there  was  in  France  no  hve  tradition  of  popular  participa- 
tion in  government  and  no  written  guarantee  of  personal  liberty. 

Consolidated  at  home  in  territory  and  in  government,  French- 
men began  about  the  year  1500  to  be  attracted  to  questions  of 
external  policy.     By  attempting   to   enforce  an  in-  Foreign 
herited  claim  to  the  crown  of  Naples,  Charles  VIII  Relations 
in  1494  started  that  career  of  foreign  war  and  ag-  French 
grandizement   which    was    to    mark    the   history   of  Kings 
France  throughout  following  centuries.     His  efforts  ^  °"*  ^^°° 
in  Italy  were  far  from  successful,  but  his  heir,  Louis  XII  (1498- 
151 5),  continued  to  lay  claim  to  Naples  and  to  the  duchy  of 
Milan  as  well.     In  1504  Louis  was  obliged  to  resign  Naples  to 
King  Ferdinand  of  Aragon,  in  whose  family  it  remained  for 
two  centuries,  but  about  Milan  continued  a  conflict,  with  vary- 
ing fortunes,  ultimately  merging  into  the  general  struggle  between 
Francis  I  (15 15-1547)  and  the  Emperor  Charles  V. 

France  in  the  year  1500  was  a  real  national  monarchy,  with 
the  beginnings  of  a  national  literature  and  with  a  national 
patriotism  centering  in  the  king.  It  was  becoming  self-conscious. 
Like  England,  France  was  on  the  road  to  one-man  power,  but 
unlike  England,  the  way  had  been  marked  by  no  liberal  or 
constitutional  mile-posts. 

Spain  and  Portugal 

South   of   the   Pyrenees  were   the   Spanish   and   Portuguese 
monarchies,  which,  in  a  long  process  of  unification,  not  only 
had  to  contend  against  the  same  disuniting  tendencies  Develop- 
as  appeared  in  France  and  England,  but  also  had  to  ment  of  the 
solve  the  problem  of  the  existence  side  by  side  of  and'por- 
two  great  rival  religions  —  Christianity  and  Moham-  tuguese 
medanism.     Mohammedan  invaders  from  Africa  had 
secured  political  control  of  nearly  the  whole  peninsula  as  early 
as  the  eighth  century,  but  in  course  of  time  there  appeared  in 


8  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  northern  and  western  mountains  several  diminutive  Chris- 
tian states,  of  which  the  following  may  be  mentioned  :  Barcelona, 
in  the  northeast,  along  the  Mediterranean ;  Aragon,  occupying 
the  south-central  portion  of  the  Pyrenees  and  extending  south- 
ward toward  the  Ebro  River;  Navarre,  at  the  west  of  the 
Pyrenees,  reaching  northward  into  what  is  now  France  and 
southward  into  what  is  now  Spain;  Castile,  west  of  Navarre, 
circling  about  the  town  of  Burgos;  Leon,  in  the  northwestern 
corner  of  the  peninsula ;  and  Portugal,  south  of  Leon,  lying 
along  the  Atlantic  coast.  Little  by  little  these  Christian  states 
extended  their  southern  frontiers  at  the  expense  of  the  Moham- 
medan power  and  showed  some  disposition  to  combine.  In 
the  twelfth  century  Barcelona  was  united  with  the  kingdom  of 
Aragon,  and  a  hundred  years  later  Castile  and  Leon  were  finally 
joined.  Thus,  by  the  close  of  the  thirteenth  century,  there  were 
three  important  states  in  the  peninsula  —  Aragon  on  the  east, 
Castile  in  the  center,  and  Portugal  on  the  west  —  and  two 
less  important  states  —  Christian  Navarre  in  the  extreme 
north,  and  Mohammedan  Granada  in  the  extreme  south. 

While  Portugal  acquired  its  full  territorial  extension  in  the 
peninsula  by  the  year  1263,  the  unity  of  modern  Spain  was 
delayed  until  after  the  marriage  of  Ferdinand  (1479-15 16)  and 
Isabella  (1474-1504),  sovereigns  respectively  of  Aragon  and 
Castile.  Granada,  the  last  foothold  of  the  Mohammedans, 
fell  in  1492,  and  in  151 2  Ferdinand  acquired  that  part  of  the 
ancient  kingdom  of  Navarre  which  lay  upon  the  southern  slope 
of  the  Pyrenees.  The  peninsula  was  henceforth  divided  be- 
tween the  two  modern  states  of  Spain  and  Portugal. 

Portugal,  the  older  and  smaller  of  the  two  states,  had  become 
a  conspicuous  member  of  the  family  of  nations  by  the  year  1500, 
thanks  to  a  line  of  able  kings  and  to  the  remarkable 
a  Real  ^  series  of  foreign  discoveries  that  cluster  about  the 
National  name  of  Prince  Henry  the  Navigator.  Portugal 
in'i'soo^  ^  possessed  a  distinctive  language  of  Latm  origin  and 
already  cherished  a  literature  of  no  mean  proportions. 
In  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  age  the  monarchy  was  tend- 
ing toward  absolutism,  and  the  parliament,  called  the  Cortes, 
which  had  played  an  important  part  in  earlier  times,  ceased  to 
meet  regularly  after  1521.     The  Portuguese  royal  family  were 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  9 

closely  related  to  the  Castilian  line,  and  there  were  people  in 
both  kingdoms  who  hoped  that  one  day  the  whole  peninsula 
would  be  united  under  one  sovereign. 

From  several  standpoints  the  Spanish  monarchy  was  less 
unified  in  1500  than  England,  France,  or  Portugal.  The  union 
of  Castile  and  Aragon  was,  for  over  two  centuries, 
hardly  more  than  personal.  Each  retained  its  own  Spanish 
customs,  parliaments  (Cortes),  and  separate  ad-  kingdom 
mmistration.  Each  possessed  a  distmctive  language, 
although  Castilian  gradually  became  the  literary  "Spanish," 
while  Catalan,  the  speech  of  Aragon,  was  reduced  to  the  position 
of  an  inferior.  Despite  the  continuance  of  excessive  pride  in 
local  traditions  and  institutions,  the  cause  of  Spanish  nationality 
received  great  impetus  during  the  reign  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella. 
It  was  under  them  that  territorial  unity  had  been  obtained. 
It  was  they  who  turned  the  attention  of  Spaniards  to  foreign 
and  colonial  enterprises.  The  year  that  marked  the  fall  of 
Granada  and  the  final  extinction  of  Mohammedan  power  in 
Spain  was  likewise  signalized  by  the  first  voyage  of  Christopher 
Columbus,  which  prefigured  the  establishment  of  a  greater 
Spain  beyond  •  the  seas.  On  the  continent  of  Europe,  Spain 
speedily  acquired  a  commanding  position  in  international 
affairs,  as  the  result  largely  of  Ferdinand's  ability.  The  royal 
house  of  Aragon  had  long  held  claims  to  the  Neapolitan  and 
Sicilian  kingdoms  and  for  two  hundred  years  had  freely  mixed 
in  the  politics  of  Italy.  Now,  in  1504,  Ferdinand  definitely 
secured  recognition  from  France  of  his  rights  in  Naples,  Sicily, 
and  Sardinia.  Spain  was  becoming  the  rival  of  Venice  for  the 
leadership  of  the  Mediterranean. 

While  interfering  very  little  with  the  forms  of  representative 
government  in  their  respective  kingdoms,  Ferdinand  and  Isabella 
worked    ever,    in   fact,    toward   uniformity   and   ab-  increase 
solutism.     They    sought    to    ingratiate     themselves  of  Royal 
with   the  middle  class,   to  strip  the  nobility  of  its  spain  under 
political  influence,  and  to  enlist  the  church  in  their  Ferdinand 

1  ,  ,      ,       and  Isabella 

ser\qce.     The    Cortes    were    more    or    less    regularly 
convened,  but  their  functions  were  almost  imperceptibly  trans- 
ferred  to  royal   commissions  and  officers  of  state.     Privileges 
granted  to  towns  in  earlier  times  were  now  gradually  revoked. 


lo  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

The  king,  by  becoming  the  head  of  the  ancient  mihtary  orders 
which  had  borne  prominent  part  in  the  struggle  against  the 
Mohammedans,  easily  gained  control  of  considerable  treasure 
and  of  an  effective  fighting  force.  The  sovereigns  prevailed 
upon  the  pope  to  transfer  control  of  the  Inquisition,  the  m.edieval 
ecclesiastical  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  heretics,  to  the  crown,  so 
that  the  harsh  penalties  which  were  to  be  inflicted  for  many 
years  upon  dissenters  from  orthodox  Christianity  were  due  not 
only  to  religious  bigotry  but  likewise  to  the  desire  for  political 
uniformity. 

In  population  and  in  domestic  resources  Spain  was  not  so 
important  as  France,  but  the  exploits  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella, 
the  great  wealth  which  temporarily  flowed  to  her  from  the 
colonies,  the  prestige  which  long  attended  her  diplomacy  and 
her  armies,  were  to  exalt  the  Spanish  monarchy  throughout  the 
sixteenth  century  to  a  position  quite  out  of  keeping  with  her 
true  importance. 

2.   THE   OLD   HOLY  ROMAN  EMPIRE 

The  national  monarchies  of  western  Europe  —  England, 
France,  Spain,  and  Portugal  — ■  were  political  novelties  in  the  year 
1500:  the  idea  of  uniting  the  people  of  similar  lan- 
The  Idea  guage  and  customs  under  a  strongly  centralized  state 
"  Empire "  had  been  slowly  developing  but  had  not  reached 
Different  fruition  much  before  that  date.  On  the  other  hand, 
from  that  in  central  Europe  survived  in  weakness  an  entirely 
of  a  "  Na-      different  kind  of  state,  called  an  empire.     The  theory 

tional  ,  .  •      ^  V  . 

Monarchy  "  of  an  empire  was  a  very  ancient  one  —  it  meant  a 
state  which  should  embrace  all  peoples  of  whatso- 
ever race  or  language,  bound  together  in  obedience  to  a  common 
prince.  Such,  for  example,  had  been  the  ideal  of  the  old  Roman 
Empire,  under  whose  Coesars  practically  the  whole  civilized 
world  had  once  been  joined,  so  that  the  inhabitant  of  Egypt  or 
Armenia  united  with  the  citizen  of  Britain  or  Spain  in  allegiance 
to  the  emperor.  That  empire  retained  its  hold  on  portions  of 
eastern  Europe  until  its  final  conquest  by  the  Ottoman  Turks 
in  1453,  but  a  thousand  years  earher  it  had  lost  control  of  the 
West  because  of  external  violence  and  internal  weakness.     So 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  ii 

great,  however,  was  the  strength  of  the  idea  of  an  "empire," 
even  in  the  West,  that  Charlemagne  about  the  year  800  tem-f| 
porarily  united  what  are  now  France,  Germany,  Italy,  tha.l 
Netherhmds,  and  Belgium  into  what  he  persisted  in  styling  the 
"Roman  Empire."  Nearly  two  centuries  later,  Otto_the^reaty^ 
a  famous  prince  in  Germany,  gave  other  form  to  the  idea,  in  they 
"Holy  Roman  Empire"  of  which  he  became  emperor.  Thisl 
form  endured  from:;962  to  1806. 

In  theory,  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  claimed  supremacy  over 
all  Christian  rulers  and  peoples  of  central  and  western  Europe, 
and  after  the  extinction  of  the  eastern  empire  in  1453 
it  could  insist  that  it  was  the  sole  secular  heir  to  the  The  Holy 
ancient  Roman  tradition.     But  the  greatness  of  the  E^'ph-e- 
theoretical  claim  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  was  its  Mighty 
matched  only  by  the  insignificance  of  its  practical  xhe^y*'^ 
acceptance.     The   feudal   nobles  of  western   Europe  and  its 
had  never  recognized  it,  and  the  national  monarchs,  po^gj  jn 
though  they  might  occasionally  sport  with  its  honors  Practice 
and  titles,  never  admitted  any  real  dependence  upon 
it  of  England,  France,  Portugal,  or  Spain.     In  central  Europe, 
it  had  to  struggle  against  the  anarchical  tendencies  of  feudalism, 
against  the  rise  of  powerful  and  jealous  city-states,  and  against 
a  rival  organization,  the  Catholic  Church,  which  in  its  temporal 
affairs  was  at  least  as  clearly  an  heir  to  the  Roman  tradition  as 
was  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.     From  the  eleventh  to  the  thir- 
teenth century  the  conflict  raged,  with  results  important  for 
all  concerned, — results  which  were  thoroughly  obvious  in  the 
year  1500. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  was  practically  y 
restricted  to  German-speaking  peoples.     The  papacy  and  the 
Italian  cities  had  been  freed  from  imperial  control, 
and   both   the  Netherlands  —  that  is,   Holland  and  Roman  ^ 
Belgium  —  and  the  Swiss  cantons  were   only   nomi-  Empire 
nally  connected.     Over  the  Slavic  people  to  the  east  R^gVic^ed 
—  Russians,   Poles,   etc.  —  or   the   Scandinavians   to  by  1500 
the   north,    the   empire   had   secured    comparatively  oermanies 
small  influence.     By  the  year  1500  the  words  Em-  ■ 

pire  and  Germany  had  become  virtually  interchangeable  termsjj " 

Secondly,  there  was  throughout  central  Europe  no  conspicuous 


12  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

desire  for  strong  centralized  national  states,  such  as  prevailed  in 
western  Europe.  Separatism  was  the  rule.  In  Italy  and  in  the 
Internal  ■  Netherlands  the  city-states  were  the  political  units. 
Weakness  Within  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  was  a  vast  hodge- 
^^^^  podge   of   city-states,    and    feudal   survivals  —  arch- 

Roman  duchies,    such    as    Austria ;    margravates,    such    as 

Empire  Brandenburg;     duchies,  like    Saxony,    Bavaria,  and 

Wiirttemberg ;  counties  like  the  Palatinate,  and  a  host  of  free 
cities,  baronies,  and  domains,  some  of  them  smaller  than  an 
American  township.  In  all  there  were  over  three  hundred  states 
which  collectively  were  called  "the  Germanics"  and  which  were 
united  only  by  the  slender  imperial  thread.  The  idea  of  empire 
had  not  only  been  narrowed  to  one  nation  ;  it  also,  in  its  failure 
to  overcome  feudaHsm,  had  prevented  the  growth  of  a  real  na- 
tional monarchy. 

What  was  the  nature  of  this  sHght  tie  that  nominally  held 
the  Germanics  together?  There  was  the  form  of  a  central 
government  with  an  emperor  to  execute  laws  and  a 
menrof  ^i*^t  to  make  them.  The  emperor  was  not  neces- 
the  Holy  sarily  hereditary  but  was  chosen  by  seven  "  electors," 
EnTh-e  ^^^  Were  the  chief  princes  of  the  realm.  These 
seven  were  the  archbishops  of  Mainz  (Mayence),  of 
Cologne,  and  of  Trier  (Treves),  the  king  of  Bohemia,  the 
duke  of  Saxony,  the  margrave  of  Brandenburg,  and  the  count 
palatine  of  the  Rhine.  Not  infrequently  the  electors  used  their 
position  to  extort  concessions  from  the  emperor-elect  which 
helped  to  destroy  German  unity  and  to  promote  the  selfish 
interests  of  the  princes.  The  imperial  Diet  was  composed  of 
the  seven  electors,  the  lesser  princes  (including  the  higher 
ecclesiastical  dignitaries,  such  as  bishops  and  abbots),  and 
representatives  of  the  free  cities,  grouped  in  three  separate 
houses.  The  emperor  was  not  supposed  to  perform  any  im- 
perial act  without  the  authorization  of  the  Diet,  and  petty 
jealousies  between  its  members  or  houses  often  prevented 
action  in  the  Diet.  The  individual  states,  moreover,  reserved 
to  themselves  the  management  of  most  affairs  which  in  west- 
ern Europe  had  been  surrendered  to  the  central  national  gov- 
ernment. The  Diet,  and  therefore  the  emperor,  was  without 
a  treasury  or  an  army,  unless  the  indivddual  states  sawjit  to 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   jMODERN   EUROPE  13 

act  favorably  upon  its  advice  and  furnish  the  requested  quotas. 
The  Diet  resembled  far  more  a  congress  of  diplomats  than  a 
legislative  body. 

It  will  be  readily  perceived  that  under  these  circumstances 
the  emperor  as  such  could  have  little  influence.     Yet  the  fear 
of   impending  Slavic  or  Turkish    attacks   upon    the 
eastern  frontier,  or  other  fears,  frequently  operated  to  JJ^®  ^ 

1         1        •  r  •  \       1       1        m    •      J.1       Habsburgs : 

secure  the  election  01  some  prmcc  who  had  surriciently  weak  as 

strong  power  of  his  own  to  stay  the  attack  or  remove  ?™^|5°''^ 

the  fear.     In  this  way,\Rudolph  of  Habsburg,  arch-  as  Rulers 

duke  of  Austria,  had  been  chosen  emperor  in  1273,  °^  Particu- 

and  in  his  family,  with  few  interruptions,  continued  within  the 

the  imperial  title,  not  only  to  i^oo  but  to  the  final  ^°'y 

-  ■,-       .  r     1  '        '  f-  Roman 

extmction  of  the  empire  m  1806.     Several  of  these  Empire 
Habsburg    emperors   were   influential,    but   it    must 
always  be  remembered  that  they  owed  their  power  not  to  the 
empire  but  to  their  own  hereditary  states. 

Originally  lords  of  a  small  district  in  Switzerland,  the  Habs- 
burgs had  gradually  increased  their  holdings  until  at  length 
Rudolf,  the  maker  of  his  family's  real  fortunes,  had  possessed 
himself  in  1268  of  the  valuable  archduchy  of  Austria  with  its 
capital,  Vienna,  and  five  years  later  had  been  chosen  Holy 
Roman  Emperor.  The  family  subsequently  became  related l\ 
by  marriage  to  reigning  famihes  in  Hungary  and  in  Italy  as  1 1 
well  as  in  Bohemia  and  other  states  of  the  empire.  In  1477 
the  Emperor  Maximilian  I  (1493-15 19)  married  Mary  of  Bur- 
gundy, daughter  of  Charles  the  Bold  and  heiress  of  the  wealthy 
provinces  of  the  Netherlands ;  and  in  1496  his  son  Philip  was 
united  to  Joanna,  the  daughter  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  and 
heiress  of  the  crowns  of  Castile  and  Aragon.  The  fortunes  of 
the  Habsburgs  were  decidedly  auspicious. 

Of  course,  signs  were  not  wanting  of  some  national  Hfe  in  the 
Germanics.     Most   of   the  people  spoke  a  common  ,,  . 
language ;    a  form  of  national  unity  existed  m  the  Attempts 
Diet ;  and  many  patriots  raised  their  voice  in  behalf  ^°  "  ^f- 
of  a  stronger  and  more  centralized  government.     In  Holy 
149  s  a  Diet  met  at  the  city  of  Worms  to  discuss  Roman 

.  ,  .  .  r        r  A  f  Empire 

With  Emperor  Maximihan  projects  of  reform.     After 
protracted  debates,  it  was  agreed  that  private  warfare,  a  sur- 


14  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

vival  of  feudal  days,  should  be  abolished ;  a  perpetual  peace 
should  be  declared ;  and  an  imperial  court  should  be  estab- 
hshed  to  settle  all  disputes  between  states  within  the  empire. 
These  efforts  at  reform,  hke  many  before  and  after,  were  largely 
unfruitful,  and,  despite  occasional  protests,  practical  disunion 
\  Iprevailed  in  the  Germanics  of  the  sixteenth  century,  albeit 
H  \  junder  the  high-sounding  title  of  "Holy  Roman  Empire." 

3.   THE   CITY-STATES 

Before  the  dawn  of  the  Christian  era  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
had  eiitertained  a  general  idea  of  political  organization  which 
"  Citv-  would  seem  strange  to  most  of  us  at  the  present  time, 

states "  They  beheved  that  every  city  with  its  outlying 
*"  ^^°°  country  should  constitute  an  independent  state, 
with  its  own  particular  law-making  and  governing  bodies, 
army,  coinage,  and  foreign  relations.  To  them,  the  idea  of  an 
empire  was  intolerable  and  the  concept  of  a  national  state,  such 
as  we  commonly  have  to-day,  unthinkable. 

Now  it  so  happened,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  following  chapter, 
that  the  commerce  of  the  middle  ages  stimulated  the  growth 
of  important  trading  towns  in  Italy,  in  Germany,  and  in  the 
Netherlands.  These  towns,  in  one  way  or  another,  managed 
to  secure  a  large  measure  of  self-government,  so  that  by  the 
\\year  1500  they  had  become  somewhat  similar  to  the  city-states 
Ijof  antiquity.  In  Germany,  though  they  still  maintained  their 
local  self-government,  they  were  loosely  attached  to  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  and  were  overshadowed  in  political  influence 
by  other  states.  In  the  case  of  Italy  and  of  the  Netherlands, 
however,  it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  politics  of  those 
countries  in  the  sixteenth  century  without  paying  some  atten- 
tion to  city-states,  which  played  leading  roles  in  both. 

In  the  Italy  of  the  year  1500  there  was  not  even  the.  sem- 
blance of  national  pohtical  unity.  Despite  the  ardent  longings 
of  many  Italian  patriots,^  and  the  rise  of  a  common  language, 

'  Of  such  patriots  was  Machiavclli  (sec  below,  p.  194).  ]\Iachia\elli  wrote  in 
The  Prince:  "Our  country,  left  almost  without  life,  still  waits  to  know  who  it 
is  that  is  to  heal  her  bruises,  to  put  an  end  to  the  devastation  and  plunder  of  Lom- 
bardy  and  to  the  exactions  and  imposts  of  Naples  and  Tuscany,  and  to  stanch 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN  EUROPE      15 

which,  under  such  masters  as   Dante   and    Petrarch,  had    be- 
come a  great  mecHum  for  htcrary   expression,   the   people   of 
the  peninsula  had  not  built  up  a  national  monarchy 
like  those  of  western  Europe  nor  had  they  even  pre-  Italy  in 
served  the  form  of  allegiance  to  the  Holy  Roman  neither  a 
Empire.     This  was  due  to  several  significant  events  National 
of  earher  times.     In  the  first  place,  the  attempt  of  noT^lv  ^ 
the  medieval  German  emperors  to  gain  control   of  tached  to 
Italy  not  only  had  signally  failed  but  had  left  be-  Roman  ^ 
[hind  two  contending  factions  throughout  the  whole  Empire 
country,  —  one,  the  Ghibellines,  supporting  the  doc- 
trine of  maintaining  the  traditional  connection  with  the  Ger- 
manics ;  the  other,  the  Guelphs,  rejecting  that  doctrine.     In  the 
second  place,   the  pope,   who  exercised   extensive  pohtical   as 
well   as   rehgious   power,   felt   that   his   ecclesiastical   influence 
would  be  seriously  impaired  by  the  creation  of  political  unity 
in  the  country ;   a  strong  lay  monarch  with  a  soHd  Italy  behind 
him  would  in  time  reduce  the  sovereign  pontiff  to  a  subservient 
position  and  diminish  the  prestige  which  the  head  of  the  church 
enjoyed   in   foreign   lands ;     therefore    the  J)ppes   participated 
actively_in  the  game  .oUtalian  pohtics,   always  endeavoring 
to  prevent  aiiy  one  state  from  becoming  too  powerful.     Thirdly, 
the  comparatively  early  commercial  prominence  of  the  Italian 
towns  had  stimulated  trade  rivalries  which  tended  to  make  each 
proud  of  its  independence  and  wealth ;    and  as  the  cities  grew 
and  prospered  to  an  unwonted  degree,  it  became  increasingly 
difficult   to   join   them   together.       Finally,    the   riches   of   the 
Italians,   and   the  local  jealousies  and  strife,   to  say  nothing 
of  the  papal  policy,  marked  the  country  as  natural  prey  for 
foreign  interference  and  conquest;    and  in  this  way  the  pen- 
insula became  a  battleground  for  Spaniards,  Frenchmen,  and 
Germans. 

Before  re\'iewing  the  chief  city-states  of  northern  Italy,  it 
will  be  well  to  say  a  word  about  two  other  political  divisions 
of  the  country.     The  southern  third  of  the  peninsula  comprised 

those  wounds  of  hers  which  long  neglect  has  changed  into  running  sores.  We  see 
how  she  prays  God  to  send  some  one  to  rescue  her  from  these  barbarous  cruelties 
and  oppressions.  We  see  too  how  ready  and  eager  she  is  to  follow  any  standard, 
were  there  only  some  one  to  raise  it." 


11 


i6  HISTORY   OF  MODERN  EUROPE 

I  the  ancient  kingdom  of  Naples,  which  had  grown  up  about  the 

city  of  that  name,  and  which,  together  with  the  large  island  of 

Sicily,  was  called   the  kingdom  of  the  Two  SiciHes. 

Southern       'pj^jg  state,  having  been  first  formed  by  Scandinavian 

Italy  in  •        i         ,  i  i       i  •      , 

1500:  the  adventurers  m  the  eleventh  century,  had  successively 
Kingdom  of  passed  Under  papal  suzerainty,  under  the  domination 
Sicilies  of  the  German  emperors,  and  at  length  in  1266  under 

French  coiitrol.  A  revolt  in  Sicily  in  the  year  1282, 
commonly  called  the  Sicilian  Vespers j  had  severed  the  relation 
between  the  island  and  the  mainland,  the  former  passing  to 
the  royal  family  of  Aragon,  and  the  latter  troublously  remain- 
ing in  French  hands  until  1442.  The  reunion  of  the  Two 
Sicilies  at  that  date  under  the  crown  of  Aragon  served  to  keep 
alive  the  quarrel  between  the  French  and  the  Spanish ;  and 
it  was  not  until  1504  that  the  king  of  France  definitely  re- 
nounced his  Neapolitan  claims  in  favor  of  Ferdinand  of  Aragon. 
Socially  and  politically  Naples  was  the  most  backward  state 
in  Italy. 

About  the  city  of  Rome  had  grown  up  in  the  course  of  cen- 
turies the  Papal  States,  or  as  they  were  ofhcially  styled,  the 

Patrimony  of  St.  Peter.  It  had  early  fallen  to  the 
Italy '^^  lot  of  the  bishop,  as  the  most  important  person  in 
1500:  the  the  city,  to  exercise  political  power  over  Rome,  when 
st^a^tes  barbarian  invasions  no  longer  permitted  the  exercise 

of  authority  by  Roman  emperors ;  and  control  over 
neighboring  districts,  as  well  as  over  the  city,  had  been  expressly 
recognized  and  conferred  upon  the  bishop  by  Charlemagne  in 
the  eighth  century.  This  bishop  of  Rome  was,  of  course,  the 
pope ;  and  the  pope  slowly  extended  his  territories  through 
central  Italy  from  the  Tiber  to  the  Adriatic,  long  using  them 
merely  as  a  bulwark  to  his  religious  and  ecclesiastical  preroga- 
tives. By  the  year  1500,  however,  the  popes  were  becoming 
prone  to  regard  themselves  as  ItaHan  princes  who  might 
\normally  employ  their  states  as  so  many  pawns  in  the  game 
pf  peninsular  politics.  The  policy  of  the  notorious  Alexander 
VI  (1492-1503)  centered  in  his  desire  to  estabHsh  his  son, 
Cesare  Borgia," as  an  Italian  ruler;  and  Julius  II  (1503-15 13) 
was  famed  more  for  statecraft  and  military  prowess  than  for 
religious  fervor. 


^ 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN   EUROPE  17 

North  and  west  of  the  Papal  States  were  the  various  city- 
states  which  were  so  thoroughly  distinctive  of  Italian  politics 
at  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century.     Although 
these   towns  had  probably   reached  a  higher  plane  sta^tes'oV 
both  of  material  prosperity  and  of  intellectual  culture  Northern 
than  was  to  be  found  at  that  time  in  any  other  part  ^^J^  ^"^ 
of  Europe,  nevertheless  they  were  deeply  jealous  of 
each  other  and  carried  on  an  interminable  series  of  petty  wars, 
the  brunt  of  which  was  borne  by  professional  hired  soldiers 
and   freebooters   styled   condottieri.     Among    the   Italian    city- 
states,  the  most  famous  in  the  year  1500  were  Milan,  Venice,    V 
Genoa,  and  Florence. 

Of  these  cities,  Milan  was  still  in  theory  a  ducal  fief  of  the    I*.. 
Holy  Roman  Empire"  but  had  long  been  in  fact  the  prize  of 
despotic  rulers  who  were  descended  from  two  famous 
families  —  the  Visconti  and   the  Sforza  —  and  who  s^^ates-  *  ^' 
combined  the  patronage  of  art  with  the  fine  political  Milan 
subtleties    of    Italian    tyrants.     The    Visconti    ruled  by°Despots 
Milan   from   the   thirteenth   century   to   the  middle 
of  the  fifteenth,  when  a  Sforza,  a  leader  of  condottieri,  estab- 
lished the  supremacy  of  his  own  family.     In  1499,  however, 
King  Louis  XII  of  France,  claiming  the  duchy  as  heir  to  the 
Visconti,  seized  Milan  and  held  it  until  he  was  expelled  in  151 2 
by  the  Holy  League,  composed  of  the  pope,  Venice,  Spain,  and 
England^and_a^forza  was  temporarily  reinstated. 

As  Milan  was  the  type  of  ItaHan  city  ruled  by  a  despot  or 
tyrant,  so  Venicewas  a  type  of  the  cornmercial,  oligarchical 
city-states.     Venice  was  by  Tar  the  most  powerful  „    . 

^ — "^ — -; "^  .  Venice,  a 

state  in  the  peninsula.     Located  on  the  islands  and  Type  of  the 

lagoons  at  the  head  of  the  Adriatic,  she  had  profited  Commer- 

greatly  by  the  crusades  to  build  up  a  maritime  empire  Aristocratic 

and  an  enviable  trade  on  the  eastern  Mediterranean  ^*.^'^^°  ^ 

•  1     1        1      •        1        City-States 

and  had  extended  her  sway  over  rich  lands  m  the 
northeastern  part  of  Italy.     In  the  year  1500,  Venice  boasted  j     , 
3000   ships,    300,000   sailors,    a   numerous   and   veteran   army,*' 
famous  factories  of  plate  glass,  silk  stuffs,  and  gold  and  silver 
objects,  and  a  singularly  strong  government.     Nominally  Venice 
was  a  republic,  but  actually  an  ojigarchy.     Political  power  was 
intrusted  jointly  to  several  agencies :    (i)   a  grand  council  con- 


i8  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

trolled  by  the  commercial  magnates ;  (2)  a  centralized  committee 
of  ten;  (3)  an  elected  doge,  or  duke;  and  (4),  after  1454, 
three  state  inquisitors,  henceforth  the  city's  real  masters.  The 
inquisitors  could  pronounce  sentence  of  death,  dispose  of  the 
public  funds,  and  enact  statutes ;  they  maintained  a  regular 
spy  system ;  and  trial,  judgment,  and  execution  were  secret. 
The  mouth  of  the  lion  of  St.  Mark  received  anonymous  de- 
nunciations, and  the  waves  which  passed  under  the  Bridge  of 
Sighs  carried  away  the  corpses.  To  this  regime  Venice  owed 
an  internal  peace  which  contrasted  with  the  endless  civil  wars 
of  the  other  Italian  cities.  Till  the  final  destruction  of  the  state 
in  1798  Venice  knew  no  political  revolution.  In  foreign  affairs, 
also,  Venice  possessed  considerable  influence ;  she  was  the  hrst 
European  state  to  send  regular  envoys,  or  ambassadors,  to  other 
courts.  It  seemed  in  1500  as  if  she  were  particularly  wealthy 
and  great,  but  already  had  been  sowed  the  seed  of  her  subse- 
quent decline  and  humiliation.  The  advance  of  the  Ottoman 
Turks  threatened  her  position  in  eastern  Europe,  although  she 

hstill  held  the  Morea  in  Greece,  Crete,  Cyprus,  and  many  Ionian 
^  1  and  iEgean  islands.  The  discovery  of  America  and  of  a  new 
route  to  India  was  destined  to  shake  the  very  basis  of  her 
commercial  supremacy.  And  her  unscrupulous  policy  toward 
her  Italian  rivals  lost  her  friends  to  the  west.  So  great  was  the 
enmity  against  Venice  that  the  formidable  League  of  Cambrai, 

\\  entered  into  by  the  emperor,  the  pope,  France,  and  Spain  in 

II 1508,  wrung  many  concessions  from  her. 

Second  only  to  Venice  in  commercial  importance,  Genoa,  in 

marked  contrast  with  her  rival,  passed  through  all  manner  of 

political  vicissitudes  until  in  1499  she  fell  prey  to  the 

invasion  of  King  Louis  XII  of  France.     Thereafter 

y. Genoa  remained  some  years  subject  to  the  French,  but  in  1528 

I  the  resolution  of  an  able  citizen,  Andrea  Doria,  freed  the  state 
«|[rom  foreign  invaders  and  restored  to  Genoa  her  repubhcan 
institutions. 

The  famed  city-state  of  Florence  may  be  taken  as  the  best 

.  type  of  the  democratic  community,  controlled  by  a  political 
'leader.  The  city,  as  famous  for  its  free  institutions  as  for  its 
art,  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  had  come  under 
the  tutelage  of  a  family  of  traders  and  bankers,  the  wealthy 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN  EUROPE      19 

(^edici,  avho  preserved  the  republican  forms,  and  for  a  while, 
under  Lorenzo    de'    Medici    (1449-1492),   surnamed   the  Mag- 
nificent, made  Florence  the  center  of  Itahan  culture 
and  civilization.     Soon  after  the  death  of  Lorenzo,   -pype ""'  ^ 
a  democratic  reaction  took  place  under  an  enthusi-  the  Cui- 
astic   and   puritanical  monk,   Savonarola,  who  wel-  oemo^"*^ 
corned  the  advent  of  the  French  king,  Charles  VIII,   cratic 
in  1494,  and   aided   materially  in   the   expulsion   of  cuy^state 
the  Medici.     Savonarola  soon  fell  a  victim  to    the 
plots  of  his  Florentine  enemies  and  to  the  vengeance  of  the 
pope,  whom  Charles  VIII  had  offended,  and  was  put  to  death 
in  1498.     The  democracy  managed  to  survive  until  151 2  when 
the  Medici  returned.      The  city-state  of  Florence  subsequently 
became  the  grand-duchy  of  Tuscany. 

Before  we  take  leave  of  the  Italian  states  of  the  year  1500, 
mention  should  be  made  of  the  insignificant  duchy 
of_Savoy,  tucked  away  in  the  fastnesses  of  the  north-  obscure 
western  Alps,   whose  duke,   after  varying  fortunes.  Duchy  of 
was  to  become,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  king  of  jgJo^  ^^ 
a  united  Italy. 

The  city-state  was  the  dominant  form  of  political  organiza- 
tion not  only  in  Italy  but  also  in  the  Netherlands.     The  Nether- 
lands, or  the  Low  Countries,  were  seventeen  prov- 
inces  occupying   the  fiat  lowlands  along  the  North  city-States 
Sea,  —  the  Holland,  Belgium,  and  northern  France  in  the 
of  our  own  day.     Most  of  the  inhabitants,  Flemings  ^^^^^ 
and   Dutch,  spoke  a  language  akin  to  German,  but 
in  the  south  the  Walloons  used  a  French  dialect.     At  first  the 
provinces  had  been  mere  feudal  states  at  the  mercy  of  various 
warring  noblemen,  but  gradually  in  the  course  of  the  twelfth, 
thirteenth,  and  fourteenth  centuries,  important  towns  had  arisen 
so  wealthy  and  populous  that  they  were  able  to  wrest  charters 
from   the   lords.      Thus   arose   a   number   of  municipalities  —  1  i 
practically  self-governing  repubhcs  —  semi-independent  vassals  ]  i 
of  feudal  nobles ;  and  in  many  cases  the  early  ohgarchic  systems 
of  municipal  government  speedily  gave  way  to  more  democratic 
institutions.      Remarkable    in    industry    and    prosperity  were*., 
Ghent,  Bruges,  Antwerp,  Brussels,  Liege,  Utrecht,  Delft,  Rot-j)X.v/ 
terdam,  and  many  another. 


20  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Beginmnjg_in   1384  and  continuing  throughout  the  fifteenth 
century,  (the  dukes  of  Burgundy,'  who  as  vassals  of  the  French 
king  had  long  held  the  duchy  of  that  name  in  eastern 
oAhe°°        France,  succeeded  by  marriage,  purchase,  treachery, 
City-states    or  force  in  bringing  one  by  one  the  seventeen  provinces 
Nether-         ^^  ^^^  Netherlands  under  their  rule.     This  extension 
lands  to  the  of  dominion  on  the  part  of  the  dukes  of  Burgundy 
Burgmidy      implied  the  establishment  of   a  strong  monarchical 
authority,  which  was  supported  by  the  nobility  and 
v.clergy  and  opposed  by  the  cities.     In  1465  a  common  parlia- 
ipnent,  called  the  States  General,  was  constituted  at  Brussels, 
'Icontaining   deputies    from    each    of    the    seventeen   provinces ; 
and  eight  years  later  a  grand  council  was  organized  with  supreme 
judicial  and  financial  functions.     Charles  the  Bold,  who  died 
in    1477,    was   prevented    from    constructing    a    great    central 
kingdom   between    France    and    the    Germanics    only    by    the 
shrewdness  of  his  implacable  foe,  King  Louis  XI  of  France. 
As   we   have   seen,    in   another   connection,    Louis   seized    the 
duchy  of  Burgundy  on  the  death  of  Charles  the  Bold,  thereby 
extending  the  eastern  frontier  of  France,  but  the  duke's  iur- 
heritance  in  the  Netherlands  passed   to   his   daughter   Mary. 
In    1477    Mary's    marriage    with    Maximilian    of   Austria  be- 
gan the  long  domination  of  the    Netherlands    by    the    house 
jl  of  Habsburg. 

I  --  'throughout  these  political  changes,  the  towns  of  the  Nether- 
lands maintained  many  of  their  former  privileges,  and  their 
prosperity  steadily  increased.     The  country  became  the  richest 
\r    V  in  Europe,  and  the  splendor  of  the  ducal  court  surpassed  that 
of  any  contemporary  sovereign.     A  permanent  memorial  of  it 
remains  in  the  celebrated  Order  of  the  Golden  Fleece,  which 
was  instituted  by  the  duke  of  Burgundy  in  the  fifteenth  century 
and  was  so  named  from  the  English  wool,  the  raw  material 
,  used  in  the  Flemish  looms  and    the  ve£y  joundation  of   the 
y\  country's  fortunes. 

4.   NORTHERN   AND    EASTERN   EUROPE   IN   THE   YEAR    1500 

We  have  now  reviewed  the  states  that  were  to  be  the  main 
factors  in  the  historical  events  of  the  sixteenth  century  —  the 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  21 

national  monarchies  of  England,  France,  Portugal,  and  Northern 
Spain ;    the  Holy  Roman  Empire  of  the  Germanics ;  Eastern 
and  the  city-states  of  Italy  and  the  Netherlands.     It  Europe  of 

1  11     1  •  T  .  1  Small 

may  be  well,  however,  to  point  out  that  m  northern  importance 
and  eastern  Europe  other  states  had  already  come  1,^  *^® 

,  .   ,  ,  ..  .       Sixteenth 

into  existence,  which  subsequently  were  to  artect  in   Century, 
no  small  degree  the  history  of  modern  times,  such  as  ^^  °^ , 

1       o  1-  .        1  •        1  1  ,  r^T  Great  Im- 

the  bcandmavian  kingdoms,  the  tsardom  of  Muscovy,  portance 
ithe  feudal  kingdoms  of  Poland  and  Hungary,  and   Subse- 
Ithe  empire  of  the  Ottoman  Turks. 

In  the  early  homes  of  those  Northmen  who  had  long  before 
ravaged  the  coasts  of  England  and  France  and  southern  Italy 
and    had    colonized    Iceland    and    Greenland,    were  North, 
situated   in    1500   three   kingdoms,    Denmark,    Nor-  western 
way,    and   Sweden,    corresponding   generally^  to    the  ^"'^s^candi- 
present-day    states"   of     those    names.     The     three  navian 
countries  had  many  racial  and  social  characteristics  ^°"°*"^^ 
in  common,  and  they  had  been  politically  joined  under  the  king 
of  Denmark  by  the  Union  of  Calmar  in   1397.     This  linion 
never  evoked  any  popularity  arhong  the  Swedes,  and  after  a 
series  of  revolts  and  disorders  extending  over  fifty  years,  Gus-rt 
tavus  Vasa  (15 23-1 560)  established  the  independence  of  Sweden./ 
Norway  remained  under  Danish  kings  until  18 14. 

East  of  the  Scandinavian  peninsula  and  of  the  German-speak- 
ing population  of  central  Europe,  spread  out  like  a  great  fan, 
are  a  variety  of  peoples  who  possess  many  common 
characteristics,  including  a  group  of  closely  related  siavsin 
languages,  which  are  called  Slavic.     These  Slavs  in  Central 
the  year   1500  included    (i)    the   Russians,    (2)    the  Euro^r^'" 
Poles  and  Lithuanians,    (3)   the  Czechs,   or  natives 
of  Bohemia,  within  the  confines  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire, 
and  (4)  various  nations  in  southeastern  Europe,  such  as  the 
Serbs  and  Bulgars. 

The  Russians  in  1500  did  not  possess  such  a  huge  autocratic 
state  as  they  do  to-day.     They  were  distributed  among  several 
principalities,  the  chief  and  center  of  which  was  the  Russia  in 
grand-duchy  of  Muscovy,  with  Moscow  as  its  capital,   ^soo 
Muscovy's  reigning  family  was  of  Scandinavian  extraction  but 
what  civilization  and  Christianity  the  principalities  possessed 


22  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

had  been  brought  by  Greek  missionaries  from  Constantinople. 
For  two  centuries,  from  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  to  the 
I  \  middle  of  the  fifteenth,  the  Russians  paid  tribute  to  Mongol  ^ 
I  jkHans  who  had  set  up  an  Asiatic  despotism  north  of  the  Black 
Sea.  The  beginnings  of  Russian  greatness  are  traceable  to 
\^  Ivan_IIIj  the  Great  (1462-1505),^  who  freed  his  people  from 
Mongol  domination,  united  the  numerous  principalities,  con- 
quered the  important  cities  of  Novgorod  and  Pskov,  and  ex- 
tended his  sway  as  far  as  the  Arctic  Ocean  and  the  Ural  Moun- 
tains. Russia,  however,  could  hardly  then  be  called  a  modern 
state,  for  the  political  and  social  life  still  smacked  of  Asia  rather 
than  of  Europe,  and  the  Russian  Christianity,  having  been 
derived  from  Constantinople,  differed  from  the  Christianity 
of  western  Europe.  Russia  was  not  to  appear  as  a  conspicuous 
European  state  until  the  eighteenth  century. 

Southwest  of  the  tsardom  of  Muscovy  and  east  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  was  the  kingdom  of  Poland,  to  which  Lithuanians 
Poland  as  well  as  Poles  owed  allegiance.     Despite  wide  terri- 

in  1500  tories  and  a  succession  of  able  rulers,  Poland  was  a 
weak  monarchy.  Lack  of  natural  boundaries  made  national 
defense  difficult.  Civil  war  between  the  two  peoples  who  com- 
posed the  state  and  foreign  war  with  the  neighboring  Germans 
worked  havoc  and  distress.  _An  obstructive  parliament  of  great 
lords  rendered  effective  administration  impossible.  The  nobles 
possessed  the  property  and  controlled  politics ;  in  their  hands 
the  king  gradually  became  a  puppet.  Poland  seemed  committed 
to  feudal  society  and  feudal  government  at  the  very  time  when 
the  countries  of  western  Europe  were  ridding  themselves  of  such 
checks  upon  the  free  growth  of  centralized  national  states. 
Somewhat  similar  to  Poland  in  its  feudal  propensities  was  the 


^  The  Mongols  were  a  people  of  central  Asia,  whose  famous  leader,  Jcnghiz 
Khan  (i  162-1227),  established  an  empire  which  stretched  from  the  China  Sea  to 
the  banks  of  the  Dnieper.  It  was  these  Mongols  who  drove  the  Ottoman  Turks 
from  their  original  Asiatic  home  and  thus  precipitated  the  Turkish  invasion  of 
Europe.  After  the  death  of  Jenghiz  Klian  the  Mongol  Empire  was  broken  into 
a  variety  of  "khanates,"  all  of  which  in  course  of  time  dwindled  away.  In  the 
sixteenth  century  the  Mongols  north  of  the  Black  Sea  succumbed  to  the  Turks 
as  well  as  to  the  Russians. 

-  Ivan  IV  (i 533-1584),  called  "The  Terrible,"  a  successor  of  Ivan  III,  assumed 
the  title  of  "Tsar"  in  1547. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  23 

kingdom  of  Hungary,  which  an  invasion  of  Asiatic  tribesmen  ^ 
in  the  tenth  century  had  driven  hke  a  wedge  between  the  Slavs 
of  the  Balkan  peninsula  and  those  of  the  north  —  Hungary 
Poles  and  Russians.  At  first,  the  efforts  of  such  kings  *°  ^5°° 
as  St.  Stephen  (997-1038)  proinised  the  development  of  a  great 
state,  but  the  weakness  of  the  sovereigns  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury, the  infiltration  of  western  feudalism,  and  the  endless  civil 
discords  brought  to  the  front  a  powerful  and  predatory  class  of 
barons  who  ultimately  overshadowed  the  throne.  The  brilliant 
reign  of  Matthias  Hunyadi  (1458-1490)  was  but  an  exception 
to  the  general  rule.  Not  only  were  the  kings  obliged  to  struggle 
against  the  nobles  for  their  very  existence  —  the  crown  was 
elective  in  Hungary  —  but  no  rulers  had  to  contend  with  more 
or  greater  enemies  on  their  frontiers.  To  the  north  there  was 
perpetual  conflict  with  the  Habsburgs  of  German  Austria  and 
with  the  forces  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire ;  to  the  east  there 
were  spasmodic  quarrels  with  the  Vlachs,  the  natives  of  modern 
Rumania ;  to  the  south  there  was  continual  fighting,  at  first 
with  the  Greeks  and  the  Slavs  —  Serbs  and  Bulgars,  and  later, 
most  terrible  of  all,  with  the  Ottoman  Turks. 

To  the  Eastern  Roman  Empire,  with  Constantinople  as  its 
capital,  and  with  the  Greeks  as  its  dominant  population,  and 
to  the  medieval  kingdoms  of  the  Bulgars  and  Serbs, 
had  succeeded  by  the  year  1500  the  empire  of  the  Otto-  ottomaa 
man  Turks.     The  Ottoman  Turks  were  a  tribe  of  7"rks 
Asiatic  Mohammedans  who  took  their  name  from  a 
certain  Othman  (died  1326),  under  whom  they  had  established 
themselves  in  Asia   Minor,   across   the  Bosphorus  from   Con- 
stantinople.    Thence    they    rapidly    extended    their    dominion 
over  Syria,  and  over  Greece  and  the  Balkan  peninsula,  except 
the  Httle  mountain  state  of  Montenegro,  and  in  1453  they  cap- 
tured Constantinople.     The  lands  conquered  by  the  arms  of  the 
Turks  were  divided  into  large  estates  for  the  miHtary  leaders,  or 
else  assigned  to  the  maintenance  of  mosques  and  schools,  or 
converted  into  common  and  pasturage  lands ;    the  conquered 
Christians  were  reduced  to  the  payment  of  tribute  and  a  life 
of  serfdom.     For  two  centuries  the  Turks  were  to  remain  a 
source  of  grave  apprehension  to  Europe. 

^  Hungarians,  or  Magyars  —  different  names  for  the  same  people. 


24  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 


ADDITIONAL   READINGS 

The  National  Monarchies  about  1500.  A.  F.  Pollard,  Factors  in  Eiiro- 
pean  History  (1907),  ch.  i  on  "  Nationality  "  and  ch.  iii  on  "  The  New 
Monarchy  "  ;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  I,  ch.  xiv,  xii,  xi ;  Histoire 
generate,  Vol.  IV,  ch.  xiii,  iv,  v  ;  History  of  AllNations,  Vol.  X,  ch.  xii-xvi ; 
A.  H.  Johnson,  Europe  in  the  Sixteenth  Century  (1897),  ch.  i,  ii ;  Mary  A. 
Hollings,  Renaissance  and  Reformation  (1910),  ch.  i-v.  On  England: 
A.  L.  Cross,  History  of  England  and  Greater  Britain  (1914),  ch.  xviii ; 
J.  F.  Bright,  History  of  England,  Vol.  II,  a  standard  work  ;  James  Gairdner, 
Henry  VII  (1889),  a  reliable  short  biography;  Gladys  Temperley, 
Henry  VII  (1914),  fairly  reliable  and  quite  readable;  H.  A.  L.  Fisher, 
Political  History  of  England  1485-154'/  (1906),  ch.  i-iv,  brilliant  and 
scholarly  ;  A.  D.  Innes,  History  of  England  and  the  British  Empire  (19 14), 
Vol.  II,  ch.  i,  ii ;  William  Cunningham,  The  Growth  of  English  Industry 
and  Commerce  in  Modern  Times,  5th  ed.,  3  vols.  (1910-1912),  Vol.  I, 
Book  V  valuable  for  social  conditions  under  Henry  VII ;  William  (Bishop) 
Stubbs,  Lectures  on  Mcdiceval  and  Modern  History,  ch.  xv,  xvi ;  F.  W. 
Maitland,  The  Constitutional  History  of  England  (1908),  Period  II.  On 
Scotland:  P.  H.  Brown,  History  of  Scotland,  3  vols.  (1899-1909),  Vol.  I 
from  earliest  times  to  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century ;  Andrew  Lang, 
A  History  of  Scotland,  2d  ed.,  4  vols.  (1901-1907),  Vol.  I.  On  France: 
A.  J.  Grant,  The  French  Monarchy,  I48j~iy8g,  2  vols.  (1900),  Vol.  I,  ch.  i, 
ii,  brief  and  general ;  G.  B.  Adams,  The  Growth  of  the  French  Nation  (1896), 
ch.  viii-x,  a  suggestive  sketch ;  G.  W.  Kitchin,  A  History  of  France,  4th 
ed.,  3  vols.  ( 1 894-1 899),  Vol.  I  and  Vol.  II  (in  part),  dry  and  narrowly 
political;  Lavisse  (editor),  Histoire  de  France,  Vol.  V,  Part  I  (1903),  an 
exhaustive  and  scholarly  study.  On  Spain  and  Portugal :  E.  P.  Cheyney, 
European  Background  of  American  History  (1904),  pp.  60-103;  U.  R. 
Burke,  A  History  of  Spain  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Death  of  Ferdinand 
the  Catholic,  2d  ed.,  2  vols.  (1900),  edited  by  M.  A.  S.  Hlime,  Vol.  II  best 
account  of  the  reign  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella ;  W.  H.  Prescott,  History 
of  the  Reign  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  3  vols.  (1836),  antiquated  but  ex- 
tremely readable;  Mrs.  Julia  Cartwright,  Isabella  the  Catholic  (1914),  in 
"Heroes  of  the  Nations"  Series;  H.  M.  Stephens,  Portugal  (1891)  in 
"  Story  of  the  Nations  "  Series ;  F.  W.  Schirrmacher,  Geschichte  von  Spanien, 
7  vols.  (1902),  an  elaborate  German  work,  of  which  Vol.  VII  covers  the 
years  1492-1516. 

The  Holy  Roman  Empire.  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  I  (1902), 
ch.  ix,  a  political  sketch;  James  (Viscount)  Bryce,  The  Holy  Roman  Em- 
pire, new  ed.  revised  (191 1) ;  WUliam  Coxe,  History  of  the  House  of  Austria, 
Bohn  edition,  4  vols.  (1893-1894),  a  century-old  work  but  still  useful  for 
Habsburg  history;  Sidney  Whitman,  Austria  (1899),  and,  by  the  same 
author.  The  Realm  of  the  Habsburgs  (1893) ;  Kurt  Kascr,  Deutsche  Ge- 
schichte zur  Zeit  Maximilians  I,  1486-15 ig  (191 2),  an  excellent  study  ap- 
pearing in  "  Bibliothek  dcutscher  Geschichte,"  edited  by  Von  Zwicdineck- 


FOUNDATIONS  OF   MODERN   EUROPE  25 

Siidenhorst ;  Franz  Krones,  Handbuch  der  Gcschichtc  Ocstcrreichs  von  der 
dltestcn  Zcit,  5  vols,  (i 876-1 S79),  of  which  Vol.  II,  Book  XI  treats  of  political 
events  in  Austria  from  1493  to  1526  and  Vol.  Ill,  Book  XII  of  constitu- 
tional development  1 100-1526;  Leopold  von  Rankc,  History  of  the  Latin 
and  Teutonic  Nations,  1494-1514,  a  rev.  trans,  in  the  Bohn  Library  (191 5) 
of  the  earliest  important  work  of  this  distinguished  historian,  published 
originally  in  1824. 

Italy  and  the  City-States.  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  I  (1902), 
ch.  iv-viii;  Hisloirc  generalc,  Vol.  IV,  ch.  i,  ii ;  Mrs.  H.  M.  Vernon,  Ualy 
from  I4g4  to  ijgo  (1909),  a  clear  account  in  the  "  Cambridge  Historical 
Series";  J.  A.  Symonds,  Age  of  the  Despots  (1883),  pleasant  but  inclined 
to  the  picturesque ;  Pompeo  Molmenti,  Venice,  its  Individual  Growth 
from  the  Earliest  Beginnings  to  the  Fall  of  the  Republic,  trans,  by  H.  F. 
Brown,  6  vols.  (1906-1908),  an  exhaustive  narrative  of  the  details  of  Vene- 
tian history  ;  Edward  Armstrong,  Lorenzo  de'  Medici  (1897),  in  the  "  Heroes 
of  the  Nations  "  Series,  valuable  for  Florentine  history  about  1500;  Col. 
G.  F.  Young,  The  Medici,  2  vols.  (1909),  an  extended  history  of  this  famous 
Florentine  family  from  1400  to  1743  ;  Ferdinand  Gregorovius,  History  of 
the  City  of  Rome  in  the  Middle  Ages,  trans,  from  4th  German  ed.  by  Annie 
Hamilton,  8  vols,  in  13,  a  non-Catholic  account  of  the  papal  monarchy  in 
Italy,  of  which  Vol.  VII,  Part  II  and  Vol.  VIII,  Part  I  treat  of  Rome  about 
1500.  For  the  city-states  of  the  Netherlands  see  Cambridge  Modern  His- 
tory, \'ol.  I  (1902),  ch.  xiii;  the  monumental  History  of  the  People  of  the 
Netherlands,  by  the  distinguished  Dutch  historian  P.  J.  Blok,  trans,  by 
O.  A.  Bierstadt,  5  vols.  (189S-1912),  especially  Vols.  I  and  II;  and  Belgian 
Democracy :  its  Early  History,  trans,  by  J.  \'.  Saunders  (191 5)  from  the 
authoritative  work  of  the  famous  Belgian  historian  Henri  Pirenne  (1910). 
For  the  German  city-states  see  references  under  Holy  Roman  Empire 
above. 

Northern  and  Eastern  Europe  about  1500.  General :  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  Vol.  I  (1902),  ch.  x,  iii;  Hisloirc  generale.  Vol.  IV,  ch .  xviii-xxi ; 
R.  N.  Bain,  Slavonic  Europe:  a  Political  History  of  Poland  and  Russia 
from  1447  to  lygd  (1908),  ch.  i-iv;  T.  Schiemann,  Russland,  Polen,  und 
Livland  bis  ins  i/^  Jahrhundert,  2  vols.  (18S6-1887).  Norway:  H.  H. 
Boyesen,  The  History  of  Norway  (1886),  a  brief  popular  account  in  "  Story 
of  the  Nations"  Series.  Muscovy:  \^  O.  Kliuchevsky,  A  History  of 
Russia,  trans,  with  some  abridgments  by  C.  J.  Hogarth,  3  vols,  to  close  of 
seventeenth  century  (1911-1913),  latest  and,  despite  faulty  translation, 
most  authoritative  work  on  early  Russian  history  now  available  in  English ; 
Alfred  Rambaud,  Histoire  de  la  Russie  depuis  les  origines  jusqu^a  nos  jours, 
6th  ed.  completed  to  1913  by  Emile  Haumant  (1914),  a  brilliant  work,  of 
which  the  portion  down  to  1877  has  been  trans,  by  Leonora  B.  Lang,  2  vols. 
(1879)  ;  W.  R.  A.  MorfiU,  Russia,  in  "  Story  of  the  Nations  "  Series,  and 
Poland,  a  companion  volume  in  the  same  series.  See  also  Jeremiah  Curtin, 
The  Mongols:  a  History  (1908).  For  the  Magyars:  C.  M.  Knatchbull- 
Hugessen,   The  Political  Evolution  of  the  Hungarian  Nation,  2  vols.  (1908), 


26  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

especially  Vol.  I,  ch.  i-iii;  A.  Vambery,  The  Story  of  Hungary  (1886)  in 
"  Story  of  the  Nations  "  Series ;  Count  Julius  Andrassy,  The  Development 
of  Hungarian  Constitutional  Liberty,  trans,  by  C.  Arthur  and  Ilona  Ginever 
(1908),  the  views  of  a  contemporary  Magyar  statesman  on  the  constitu- 
tional development  of  his  country  throughout  the  middle  ages  and  down 
to  1619,  difficult  to  read.  For  the  Ottoman  Turks  and  the  Balkan  peoples: 
Stanley  Lane-Poole,  Turkey  (1889),  in  "  Story  of  the  Nations  "  Series, 
best  brief  introduction ;  A.  H.  Lybyer,  The  Government  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire  in  the  Time  of  Suleiman  the  Magnificent  (1913) ;  Prince  and  Princess 
Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich,  The  Servian  People,  their  Past  Glory  and  their 
Destiny,  2  vols.  (1910),  particularly  Vol.  II,  ch.  xi,  xii ;  far  more  pretentious 
works  are  Joseph  von  Hammer,  Geschichtc  des  osmanischen  Reiches,  2d  ed.,  4 
vols.  (1834-1835),  and  Nicolae  Jorga,  Geschichte  des  osmanischen  Reiches 
nach  den  Quellcn  dargestcllt,  5  vols.  (1908-1913),  especially  Vol.  II,  1451- 
1538,  and  H.  A.  Gibbons,  The  Foundation  of  the  Ottoman  Empire  (1916), 
covering  the  earlier  years,  from  1300  to  1403. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE    COMMERCIAL    REVOLUTION 

Five  hundred  years  ago  a  European  could  search  in  vain  the 
map  of  "the  world"  for  America,  or  Austraha,  or  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  Experienced  mariners,  and  even  learned  introduc- 
geographers,  were  quite  unaware  that  beyond  the  ^°^y 
Western  Sea  lay  two  great  continents  peopled  by  red  men ;  of 
Africa  they  knew  only  the  northern  coast ;  and  in  respect  of 
Asia  a  thousand  absurd  tales  passed  current.  The  unexplored 
waste  of  waters  that  constituted  the  Atlantic  Ocean  was,  to 
many  ignorant  Europeans  of  the  fifteenth  century,  a  terrible 
region  frequented  by  fierce  and  fantastic  monsters.  To  the 
average  European  the  countries  surveyed  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  together  with  their  Mohammedan  neighbors  across  the 
Mediterranean,  still  comprised  the  entire  known  world. 

Shortly  before  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  daring 
captains  began  to  direct  long  voyages  on  the  high  seas  and  to 
discover  the  existence  of  new  lands ;  and  from  that  time  to  the 
present,  Europeans  have  been  busily  exploring  and  conquering 
—  veritably  "Europeanizing"  —  the  whole  globe.  Although 
religion  as  well  as  commerce  played  an  important  role  in  pro- 
moting the  process,  the  movement  was  attended  from  the  very 
outset  by  so  startling  a  transformation  in  the  routes,  methods, 
and  commodities  of  trade  that  usually  it  has  been  styled  the 
Commercial  Revolution.  By  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century 
it  had  proceeded  far  enough  to  indicate  that  its  results  would 
rank  among  the  most  fateful  events  of  all  history. 

It  was  in  the  commonplace  affairs  of  everyday  life  that  the 
Commercial  Revolution  was  destined  to  produce  its  most  far- 
reaching  results.  To  appreciate,  therefore,  its  true  nature  and 
significance,  we  must  first  turn  aside  to  ascertain  how  our 
European  ancestors  actually  lived  about  the  year   1500,  and 

27 


28  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

what  work  they  did  to  earn  their  Hving.  Then,  after  recount- 
ing the  story  of  foreign  exploration  and  colonization,  we  shall 
be  in  a  position  to  reappraise  the  domestic  situation  in  town 
and  on  the  farm. 

AGRICULTURE   IN  THE   SIXTEENTH   CENTURY 

Agriculture  has  always  been  the  ultimate  basis  of  society, 
but  in  the  sixteenth  century  it  was  of  greater  relative  importance 
_.^  than  it  is  now.     People  then  reckoned  their  wealth, 

Oiftcrcnccs 

between  not  by  the  cjuantity  of  stocks  and  bonds  they  held, 
Sixteenth-     j^^j-   j^y   ^\-^q  extent  of  land   they  owned.     Farming 

century  -hi  •  r     i  •      •  r     i 

Farming  was  Still  the  occupation  01  the  vast  majority  oi  the 
^?T^!i^*  population  of  every  European  state,  for  the  towns 
were  as  yet  small  in  size  and  few  in  number.  The 
"masses"  lived  in  the  country,  not,  as  to-day,  in  the  city. 

A  twentieth-century  observer  would  be  struck  by  other 
peculiarities  of  sixteenth-century  agriculture.  He  would  find  a 
curious  organization  of  rural  society,  strange  theories  of  land- 
ownership,  and  most  unfamiliar  methods  of  tillage.  He  would 
discover,  moreover,  that  practically  each  farm  was  self-sufficing, 
producing  only  what  its  own  occupants  could  consume,  and 
that  consequently  there  was  comparatively  little  external  trade 
in  farm  produce.  From  these  facts  he  would  readily  under- 
stand that  the  rural  communities  in  the  year  1500,  numerous 
yet  isolated,  were  invulnerable  strongholds  of  conservatism  and 
ignorance. 

In  certain  respects  a  remarkable  uniformity  prevailed  in 
rural  districts  throughout  all  Europe.  Whether  one  visited 
j^Q  Germany,    Hungary,    France,    or   England,    one  was 

Rural  sure    to    find    the    agricultural    population    sharply 

NobUity  divided  into  two  social  classes  —  nobility  and  peas- 
and  antry.     There  might  be  varying  gradations  of  these 

Peasantry  (^jg^gggg  [^  different  regions,  but  certain  general  dis- 
tinctions everywhere  prevailed. 

The  nobility  '  comprised  men  who  gained  a  living  from  the 

^  As  a  part  of  the  nobility  must  he  included  at  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth 
century  many  of  the  hif,dier  clerj^y  of  the  Catholic  Church  — archbishops,  bishops, 
and  abbots  —  who  owned  large  landed  estates  quite  like  their  lay  brethren. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  29 

soil  without  manual  labor.  They  held  the  land  on  feudal  ten- 
ure, that  is  to  say,  they  had  a  right  to  be  supported  by  the 
peasants  living  on  their  estates,  and,  in  return,  they  The 
owed  to  some  higher  or  wealthier  nobleman  or  to  the  Nobility 
king  certain  duties,  such  as  fighting  for  him,^  attending  his 
court  at  specified  times,  and  paying  him  various  irregular 
taxes  (the  feudal  dues).  The  estate  of  each  nobleman  might 
embrace  a  single  farm,  or  ^' manor"  as  it  was  called,  inclosing  a 
petty  hamlet,  or  village ;  or  it  might  include  dozens  of  such 
manors ;  or,  if  the  landlord  were  a  particularly  mighty  magnate 
or  powerful  prelate,  it  might  stretch  over  whole  counties. 

Each  nobleman  had  his  manor-house  or,  if  he  were  rich  enough, 
his  castle,  lording  it  over  the  humble  thatch-roofed  cottages 
of  the  villagers.  In  his  stables  were  spirited  horses  and  a  car- 
riage adorned  with  his  family  crest ;  he  had  servants  and  lackeys, 
a  footman  to  open  his  carriage  door,  a  game-warden  to  keep 
poachers  from  shooting  his  deer,  and  men-at-arms  to  quell 
disturbances,  to  aid  him  against  quarrelsome  neighbors,  or  to 
follow  him  to  the  wars.  While  he  lived,  he  might  occupy  the 
best  pew  in  the  village  church ;  when  he  died,  he  would  be  laid 
to  rest  %vithin  the  church  where  only  noblemen  were  buried. 

In  earUer  times,  when  feudal  society  was  young,  the  nobility 
had  performed  a  very  real  service  as  the  defenders  of  the  peasants 
against  foreign  enemies  and  likewise  against  marauders  Reason 
and  bandits  of  whom  the  land  had  been  full.     Then  for  the 
fighting   had   been    the   profession   of    the   nobility.  nenc™of 
And  to  enable  them  to  possess  the  expensive  accoutre-  the  No- 
ments  of  fighting  —  horses,  armor,  swords,  and  lances      ^  ^ 
—  the  kings  and  the  peasants  had  assured  them  liberal  incomes. 

Now,  however,  at  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the 
palmy  days  of  feudalism  were  past  and  gone.  Later  genera- 
tions of  noblemen,  although  they  continued  by  right  of  in- 
heritance to  enjoy  the  financial  income  and  the  social  prestige 
which  their  forbears  had  earned,  no  longer  served  king,  country, 
or  common  people  in  the  traditional  manner.  At  least  in  the 
national  monarchies  it  was  the  king  who  now  had  undertaken 
the  defense  of  the  land  and  the  preservation  of  peace ;   and  the 

^  This  obligation  rested  only  upon  lay  noblemen,  not  upon  ecclesiastics. 


30  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

nobleman,  deprived  of  his  old  occupation,  had  little  else  to  do 
than  to  hunt,  or  quarrel  with  other  noblemen,  or  engage  in 
political  intrigues.  More  and  more  the  nobility,  especially  in 
France,  were  attracted  to  a  life  of  amusement  and  luxury  in  the 
royal  court.  The  nobility  already  had  outlived  its  usefulness, 
yet  it  retained  its  old-time  privileges. 

In  striking  contrast  to  the  nobility  —  the  small  minority 
of  land-owning  aristocrats  —  were  the  peasantry  —  the  mass 
The  of  the  people.     They  were  the  human  beings  who  had 

Peasantry  ^q  ^qQ  fgj-  their  bread  in  the  sweat  of  their  brows 
and  who  were  deemed  of  ignoble  birth,  as  social  inferiors,  and 
as  stupid  and  rude.  Actual  farm  work  was  "servile  labor," 
and  between  the  man  whose  hands  were  stained  by  servile  labor 
and  the  person  of  "gentle  birth"  a  wide  gulf  was  fixed. 

During  the  early  middle  ages  most  of  the  peasants  through- 
out Europe  were  "serfs."  For  various  reasons,  which  we  shall 
„    ,,  explain  presently,  serfdom  had  tended  gradually  to 

Serfdom  .  /  -^  ^     .  ; 

and  the  die  out  m  western  Europe,  but  at  the  openmg  of  the 
Manorial  sixteenth  century  most  of  the  agricultural  laborers 
in  eastern  and  central  Europe,  and  even  a  consider- 
able number  in  France,  were  still  serfs,  living  and  working  on 
nobles'  manors  in  accordance  with  ancient  customs  which  can 
be  described  collectively  as  the  "manorial  system." 

The  serf  occupied  a  position  in  rural  society  which  it  is  difficult 
for  us  to  understand.  Fie  was  not  a  slave,  such  as  was  usual 
in  the  Southern  States  of  the  American  Union  before  the  Civil 
War ;  he  was  neither  a  hired  man  nor  a  rent-paying  tenant- 
farmer,  such  as  is  common  enough  in  all  agricultural  communi- 
ties nowadays.  The  serf  was  not  a  slave,  because  he  was  free 
!,  to  work  for  himself  at  least  part  of  the  time ;  he  could  not  be 
isold  to  another  master ;  and  he  could  not  be  deprived  of  the 
right  to  cultivate  land  for  his  own  benefit.  He  was  not  a  hired 
man,  for  he  received  no  wages.  And  he  was  not  a  tenant- 
farmer,  inasmuch  as  he  was  "attached  to  the  soil,"  that  is,  he 
was  bound  to  stay  and  work  on  his  land,  unless  he  succeeded 
in  running  away  or  in  purchasing  complete  freedom,  in  which 
case  he  would  cease  to  be  a  serf  and  would  become  a  freeman. 

To  the  lord  of  the  manor  the  serf  was  under  many  and  varied 
obligations,  the  most  essential  of  which  may  be  grouped  con- 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  31 

veniently  as  follows:  (i)  The  serf  had  to  work  without  pay 
two  or  three  days  in  each  week  on  the  strips  of  land  and  the 
fields   whose   produce    belonged    exclusively   to    the 

,  ,  XII  II  Obligations 

nobleman.  In  the  harvest  season  extra  days,  known  of  the 
as  "boon-days,"  were  stipulated  on  which  the  serf  Serf  to  the 
must  leave  his  own  work  in  order  to  harvest  for  the 
lord.  He  also  might  be  called  upon  in  emergencies  to  draw  a 
cord  of  wood  from  the  forest  to  the  great  manor-house,  or  to  work 
upon  the  highway  {corvee).  (2)  The  serf  had  to  pay  occasional 
dues,  customarily  "in  kind."  Thus  at  certain  feast-days  he 
was  expected  to  bring  a  dozen  fat  fowls  or  a  bushel  of  grain  to 
the  pantry  of  the  manor-house.  (3)  Ovens,  wine-presses,  grist- 
mills, and  bridges  were  usually  owned  solely  by  the  noble- 
man, and  each  time  the  peasant  used  them  he  was  obliged  to 
give  one  of  his  loaves  of  bread,  a  share  of  his  wine,  a  bushel  of 
his  grain,  or  a  toll-fee,  as  a  kind  of  rent,  or  "banality"  as  it  was 
euphoniously  styled.  (4)  If  the  serf  died  without  heirs,  his  hold- 
ings were  transferred  outright  to  the  lord,  and  if  he  left  heirs,  the 
nobleman  had  the  rights  of  "heriot,"  that  is,  to  appropriate  the 
best  animal  owned  by  the  deceased  peasant,  and  of  "relief," 
that  is,  to  oblige  the  designated  heir  to  make  a  definite  additional 
pa>Tnent  that  was  equivalent  to  a  kind  of  inheritance  tax. 

As  has  been  intimated,  the  manorial  system  was  already  on  a 
steady  decline,  especially  in  western  Europe,  at  the  opening  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  A  goodly  number  of  peasants  who  Free- 
had  once  been  serfs  were  now  free-tenants,  lessees,  or  Tenants 
hired  laborers.  Of  course  rent  of  farm-land  in  our  present 
sense  —  each  owner  of  the  land  letting  out  his  property  to  a 
tenant  and,  in  return,  exacting  as  large  a  monetary  payment 
as  possible  —  was  then  unknown.  But  there  was  a  growing 
class  of  peasants  who  were  spoken  of  as  free-tenants  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  serf-tenants.  These  free-tenants,  while 
paying  regular  dues,  as  did  the  others,  were  not  compelled  to 
work  two  or  three  days  every  week  in  the  lord's  fields,  except 
occasionally  in  busy  seasons  such  as  harvest ;  they  were  free 
to  leave  the  estate  and  to  marry  ofT  their  daughters  or  to  sell 
their  oxen  without  the  consent  of  the  lord ;  and  they  came  to 
regard  their  customary  payments  to  the  lord  not  so  much  as 
his  due  for  their  protection  as  actual  rent  for  their  land. 


~¥ 


32  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

While  more  prosperous  peasants  were  becoming  free-tenants, 
many  of  their  poorer  neighl^ors  found  it  so  difficult  to  gain  a 
Hired  Hving  as  serfs  that  they  were  willing  to  surrender  all 

Laborers  claim  to  their  own  little  strips  of  land  on  the  manor 
and  to  devote  their  whole  time  to  working  for  fixed  wages  on  the 
fields  which  were  cultivated  for  the  nobleman  himself,  the  so- 
called  lord's  demesne.  Thus  a  body  of  hired  laborers  grew  up 
claiming  no  land  beyond  that  on  which  their  miserable  huts 
stood  and  possibly  their  small  garden-plots. 

Besides  hired  laborers  and  free-tenants,  a  third  group  of 
peasants  appeared  in  places  where  the  noble  proprietor  did  not 
care  to  superintend  the  cultivation  of  his  own  land. 
In  this  case  he  parceled  it  out  among  particular 
peasants,  furnishing  each  with  livestock  and  a  plow  and  ex- 
pecting in  return  a  fixed  proportion  of  the  crops,  which  in  France 
usually  amounted  to  one-half.  Peasants  who  made  such  a 
bargain  were  called  in  France  metayers,  and  in  England  "stock- 
and-land  lessees."  The  arrangement  was  not  different  essen- 
tially from  the  familiar  present-day  practice  of  working  a  farm 
"on  shares." 

In  France  and  in  England  the  serfs  had  mostly  become  hired 
laborers,  tenants,  or  metayers  by  the  sixteenth  century.  The 
steady  ^^^  obligations  of  serfdom  had  proved  too  galhng  for 

Decline  of  the  serf  and  too  unprofitable  for  the  lord.  It  was 
Serfdom  Yiwich.  easier  and  cheaper  for  the  latter  to  hire  men  to 
work  just  when  he  needed  them,  than  to  bother  with  serfs, 
who  could  not  be  discharged  readily  for  slackness,  and  who 
naturally  worked  for  themselves  far  more  zealously  than  for 
him.  For  this  reason  many  landlords  were  glad  to  allow  their 
serfs  to  make  payments  in  money  or  in  grain  in  lieu  of  the  per- 
formance of  customary  labor.  In  England,  moreover,  many 
lords,  finding  it  profitable  to  inclose  ^  their  land  in  order  to  uti- 
lize it  as  pasturage  for  sheep,  voluntarily  freed  their  serfs.  The 
I  result  was  that  serfdom  virtually  had  disappeared  in  England 
jbefore  the  sixteenth  century.  In  France  as  early  as  the  four- 
teenth century  the  bulk  of  the  serfs  had  purchased  their  liberty, 


^  There  were  no  fences  on  the  old  manors.     Inclosing  a  plot  of  ground  meant 
fencing  or  hedging  it  in. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  33 

although  in  a  few  districts  serfdom  remained  in  its  'pristine 
vigor  until  the  French  Revolution. 

In  other  countries  agricultural  conditions  were  more  back- 
ward and  serfdom  longer  survived.  Prussian  and  Austrian 
landowners  retained  their  serfs  until  the  nineteenth  century ; 
the  emancipation  of  Russian  serfs  on  a  large  scale  was  not  in- 
augurated until  186 1.  There  are  still  survivals  of  serfdom  in 
parts  of  eastern  Europe. 

Emancipation  from  serfdom  by  no  means  released  the  peasants 
from  all  the  disabihties  under  which  they  labored  as  serfs. 
True,  the  freeman  no  longer  had  week-work  to  do,  survival 
provided  he  could  pay  for  his  time,  and  in  theory  of  Servile 
at  least  he  could  marry  as  he  chose  and  move  freely  after^^^'°°^ 
from  place  to  place.  But  he  might  still  be  called  Decline 
upon  for  an  occasional  day's  labor,  he  still  was  ex-  °  ^^  °™ 
pected  to  work  on  the  roads,  and  he  still  had  to  pay  annoying 
fees  for  oven,  mill,  and  wine-press.  Then,  too,  his  own  crops 
might  be  eaten  with  impunity  by  doves  from  the  noble  dove- 
cote or  trampled  underfoot  by  a  merry  hunting-party  from  the 
manor-house.  The  peasant  himself  ventured  not  to  hunt : 
he  was  precluded  even  from  shooting  the  deer  that  devoured 
his  garden.  Certain  other  customs  prevailed  in  various  locali- 
ties, conceived  originally  no  doubt  in  a  spirit  of  good-natured 
familiarity  between  noble  and  peasants,  but  now  grown  irritat- 
ing if  none  the  less  humorous.  It  is  said,  for  instance,  that  in 
some  places  newly  married  couples  were  compelled  to  vault 
the  wall  of  the  churchyard,  and  that  on  certain  nights  the 
peasants  were  obliged  to  beat  the  castle  ditch  in  order  to  rest 
the  lord's  family  from  the  dismal  croaking  of  the  frogs. 

In  another  important  respect  the  manorial  system  survived 
long  after  serfdom  had  begun  to  decline.     This  was  the  method 
of  doing  farm  work.     A  universal  and  insistent  tradi- 
tion had  fixed  agricultural  method  on  the  medieval  ^^ «  xjn-ee- 
manor  and  tended  to  preserve  it  unaltered  well  into  field  Sys- 
,  modern  times.     The  tradition  was  that  of  the  "  three-  Agriculture 
held  system"  of  agriculture.     The  land  of  the  manor, 
I'l  which  might  vary  in  amount  from  a  few  hundred  to  five  thousand 
acres,  was  not  divided  up  into  farms  of  irregular  shape  and 
size,  as  it  would  be  now.     The  waste-land,  which  could  be  used 


34  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

only  for  pasture,  and  the  woodland  on  the  outskirts  of  the  clear- 
ing, were  treated  as  "commons,"  that  is  to  say,  each  villager, 
as  well  as  the  lord  of  the  manor,  might  freely  gather  fire-wood, 
or  he  might  turn  his  swine  loose  to  feed  on  the  acorns  in  the 
forest  and  his  cattle  to  graze  over  the  entire  pasture.  The 
cultivable  or  arable  land  was  divided  into  several  —  usually 
three  —  great  grain  fields.  Ridges  or  "balks"  of  unplowed 
turf  divided  each  field  into  long  parallel  strips,  which  were 
I' usually  forty  rods  or  a  furlong  (furrow-long)  in  length,  and 
from  one  to  four  rods  wide.  Each  peasant  had  exclusive  right 
to  one  or  more  of  these  strips  in  each  of  the  three  great  fields, 
making,  say,  thirty  acres  in  all;^  the  lord  too  had  individual 
right  to  a  number  of  strips  in  the  great  fields. 

This  so-called  three-field  system  of  agriculture  Vv^as  distinctly 
disadvantageous  in  many  ways.  Much  time  was  wasted  in 
Disad-  goii^g  back  and  forth  between  the  scattered  plots  of 

vantages  land.  The  individual  peasant,  moreover,  was  bound 
field  Sys-  ^Y  custom  to  Cultivate  his  land  precisely  as  his  an- 
tem  of  cestors  had  done,  without  attempting  to  introduce 

gncu  ure    ji-Qprovements.     He    grew    the    same    crops    as    his 

1\  neighbors  —  usually  wheat  in  one  field ;  beans,  barley,  or  rye 
I  in  the  second ;  and  nothing  in  the  third.  Little  was  known 
about  preserving  the  fertility  of  the  soil  by  artificial  manuring 
or  by  rotation  of  crops ;  and,  although  every  year  one-third 
of  the  land  was  left  "fallow"  (uncultivated)  in  order  to  restore 
its  fertility,  the  yield  per  acre  was  hardly  a  fourth  as  large  as 
now.  Farm  implements  were  of  the  crudest  kind ;  scythes 
and  sickles  did  the  work  of  mowing  machines ;  plows  were 
made  of  wood,  occasionally  shod  with  iron ;  and  threshing  was 
done  with  flails.  After  the  grain  had  been  harvested,  cattle 
were  turned  out  indiscriminately  on  the  stubble,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  fields  were  common  property.  It  was  useless  to 
attempt  to  breed  fine  cattle  when  all  were  herded  together. 
The  breed  deteriorated,  and  both  cattle  and  sheep  were  under- 
sized and  poor.  A  full-grown  ox  was  hardly  larger  than  a  good- 
sized  calf  of  the  present  time.     Moreover,  there  were  no  potatoes 

^  In  some  localities  it  was  usual  to  redistribute  these  strips  every  year.  In  that 
way  the  greater  part  of  the  manor  was  theoretically  "common  "  land,  and  no  peasant 
had  a  right  of  private  ownership  to  any  one  strip. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  35 

or  turnips,  and  few  farmers  grew  clover  or  other  grasses  for  7 
winter   fodder.     It  was   impossible,    therefore,    to   keep   many 
cattle  through  the  winter ;    most  of  the  animals  were  killed  off 
in  the  autumn  and  salted  down  for  the  long  winter  months  when 
it  was  impossible  to  secure  fresh  meat. 

Crude   farm-methods  and   the  heavy  dues   exacted   by   the 
lord  ^  of  the  manor  must  have  left  the  poor  man  little  for  him- 
self.    Compared  with  the  comfort  of  the  farmer  to-  peasant 
day,  the  poverty  of  sixteenth-century  peasants  must  Life  on 
have  been  inexpressibly  distressful.     How  keenly  the      ^     ^^°^ 
cold  pierced  the  dark  huts  of  the  poorest,  is  hard  for  us  to  imagine. 
The  winter  diet  of  salt  meat,  the  lack  of  vegetables,  the  chronic 
fJth  and  squalor,  and  the  sorry  ignorance  of  all  laws  of  health 
opened  the  way  to  disease  and  contagion.     And  if  the  crops 
failed,  famine  was  added  to  plague. 

On  the  other  hand  we  must  not  forget  that  the  tenement- 
houses  of  our  great  cities  have  been  crowded  in  the  nineteenth 
century  with  people  more  miserable  than  ever  was  serf  of  the 
middle  ages.  The  serf,  at  any  rate,  had  the  open  air  instead 
of  a  factory  in  which  to  work.  When  times  were  good,  he  had 
grain  and  meat  in  plenty,  and  possibly  wine  or  cider,  and  he 
hardly  envied  the  tapestried  chambers,  the  bejeweled  clothes, 
and  the  spiced  foods  of  the  nobility,  for  he  looked  upon  them 
as  belonging  to  a  different  world. 

In  one  place  nobleman  and  peasant  met  on  a  common  foot- 
ing —  in  the  village  church.  There,  on  Sundays  and  feast- 
days,  they  came  together  as  Christians  to  hear  Mass ;  and 
afterwards,  perhaps,  holiday  games  and  dancing  on  the  green, 
benignantly  patronized  by  the  lord's  family,  helped  the  common 
folk  to  forget  their  labors.  The  village  priest,^  himself  often 
of  humble  birth,  though  the  most  learned  man  on  the  manor, 
was  at  once  the  friend  and  benefactor  of  the  poor  and  the  spirit- 

^  In  addition  to  the  dues  paid  to  the  lay  lord,  the  peasants  were  under  obliga- 
tion to  make  a  regular  contribution  to  the  church,  which  was  called  the  "tithe" 
and  amounted  to  a  share,  less  than  a  tenth,  of  the  annual  crops. 

2  Usually  very  different  from  the  higher  clergy,  who  had  large  landed  estates 
of  their  own,  the  parish  priests  had  but  modest  incomes  from  the  tithes  of  their 
parishioners  and  frequently  eked  out  a  living  by  toiling  on  allotted  patches  of 
ground.  The  monks  too  were  ordinarily  poor,  although  the  monastery  might  be 
wealthy,  and  they  likewise  often  tilled  the  fields. 


36  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

ual  director  of  the  lord.  Occasionally  a  visit  of  the  bishop  to 
administer  confirmation  to  the  children,  afforded  an  opportunity 
for  gayety  and  universal  festivity. 

At  other  times  there  was  little  to  disturb  the  monotony  of 

village  life  and  little  to  remind  it  of  the  outside  world,  except 

when  a  gossiping  peddler  chanced  along,  or  when  the 

Isolation       squire  rode  away  to  court  or  to  war.     Intercourse 

and  Con-       with  Other  villages  was  unnecessary,  unless  there  were 

servatism  i  i      i  •  i  -n  i  rr^  i 

no  blacksmith  or  miller  on  the  spot.  Ihe  roads  were 
poor  and  in  wet  weather  impassable.  Travel  was  largely  on 
horseback,  and  what  few  commodities  were  carried  from  place 
to  place  were  transported  by  pack-horses.  Only  a  few  old 
soldiers,  and  possibly  a  priest,  had  traveled  very  much ;  they 
were  the  only  geographies  and  the  only  books  of  travel  which 
the  village  possessed,  for  few  peasants  could  read  or  write. 

Self -sufficient  and  secluded  from  the  outer  world,  the  rural 
village  went  on  treasuring  its  traditions,  keeping  its  old  customs, 
century  after  century.  The  country  instinctively  distrusted 
all  novelties ;  it  always  preferred  old  ways  to  new ;  it  was 
heartily  conservative.  Country-folk  did  not  discover  America. 
It  was  the  enterprise  of  the  cities,  with  their  growing  industries 
and  commerce,  which  brought  about  the  Commercial  Revolu- 
tion; and  to  the  development  of  commerce,  industry,  and  the 
towns,  we  now  must  turn  our  attention. 

TOWNS   ON   THE   EVE  OF  THE   COMMERCIAL   REVOLUTION 

Except  for  the  wealthy  Italian  city-states  and  a  few  other 
cities  which  traced  their  history  back  to  Roman  times,  most 
Trade  and  European  towns,  it  must  be  remembered,  dated  only 
the  Towns  from  the  later  middle  ages.  At  first  there  was  little 
excuse  for  their  existence  except  to  sell  to  farmers  salt,  tish, 
iron,  and  a  few  plows.  But  with  the  increase  of  commerce, 
Y  which,  as  we  shall  see,  especially  marked  the  thirteenth,  four- 
y  Uteenth,  and  fifteenth  centuries,  more  merchants  traveled  through 
the  country,  ways  of  spending  money  multiplied,  and  the  little 
agricultural  villages  learned  to  look  on  the  town  as  the  place 
to  buy  not  only  luxuries  but  such  tools,  clothing,  and  shoes  as 
could   be   manufactured   more    conveniently   by   skillful    town 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  37 

artisans  than  by  clumsy  rustics.  The  towns,  moreover,  became 
exchanges  where  surpkis  farm  products  could  be  marketed, 
where  wine  could  be  bartered  for  wool,  or  wheat  for  flax.  And 
as  the  towns  grew  in  size,  the  prosperous  citizens  proved  to  be 
the  best  customers  for  foreign  luxuries,  and  foreign  trade  grew 
apace.  Town,  trade,  and  industry  thus  worked  together :  trade 
stimulated  industry,  industry  assisted  trade,  and  the  town 
profited  by  both.  By  the  sixteenth  century  the  towns  had 
grm\;njout  of  their  infancy  and  were  maintaining  a  great  measure 
of  political  and  economic  freedom. 

Urlgnially  many  a  town  had  belonged  to  some  nobleman's 
extensive  manor  and  its  inhabitants  had  been  under  much  the 
same  servile  obligations  to  the  lord  as  were  the  strictly  Freedom 
rural   serfs.     But  w^ith   the   lapse   of   time   and   the  of  the 
growth  of  the  towns,  the  townsmen  or  burghers  had     "^"^^ 
begun  a  struggle  for  freedom  from  their  feudal  lords.     They 
did  not  want  to  pay  servile  dues  to  a  baron,  but  preferred  to 
substitute  a  fixed  annual  payment  for  individual  obhgations; 
they  besought  the  right  to  manage  their  market ;    they  wished 
to  have  cases  at  law  tried  in  a  court  of  their  own  rather  than 
in  the  feudal  court  over  which  the  nobleman  presided ;    and 
they  demanded  the  right  to  pay  all  taxes  in  a  lump  sum  for  the 
town,    themselves  assessing  and   collecting  the   share  of  each 
citizen.     These  concessions  they  eventually  had  won,  Town 
and  each  city  had  its  cHafter7  in  which  its  privileges  Charters 
were  enumerated  and  recognized  by  the  authority  of  the  noble- 
man, or  of  the  king,  to  whom  the  city  owed  allegiance.     In 
England  these  charters  had  been  acquired  generally  by  mer- 
chant gilds,  upon  payment  of  a  substantial  sum  to  the  nobleman ; 
in  France  frequently  the  townsmen  had  formed  associations, 
called  communes,   and  had  rebelled   successfully  against  their 
feudal  lords ;    in  Germany  the  cities  had  leagued  together  for 
mutual  protection  and  for  the  acquisition  of  common  privileges. 
Other  towns,  formerly  founded  by  bishops,  abbots,  or  counts, 
had  received  charters  at  the  very  outset. 

A   peculiar   outgrowth   of    the   need   for   protection   against 
oppressive  feudal  lords,  as  well  as  against   thieves.   Merchant 
swindlers,    and  dishonest  workmen,    had    been    the   ^^^^^ 
t}^ically  urban  organization  known  as  the  merchant  gild  or  the 


38  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

merchants'  company.  In  the  year  1500  the  merchant  gilds 
were  everywhere  on  the  dechne,  but  they  still  preserved  many 
of  their  earlier  and  more  glorious  traditions.  At  the  time  of 
their  greatest  importance  they  had  embraced  merchants, 
butchers,  bakers,  and  candlestick-makers :  in  fact,  all  who 
bought  or  sold  in  the  town  were  included  in  the  gild.  And  the 
merchant  gild  had  then  possessed  the  widest  functions. 

Its  social  and  rehgious  functions,  inherited  from  much  earlier 
Earlier  bodies,   Consisted  in  paying  some  special  honor  to 

Functions  a  patron  saint,  in  giving  aid  to  members  in  sick- 
Merchant  ^^^^  ^^  misfortune,  attending  funerals,  and  also  in 
GUd:  the  more  enjoyable  meetings  when  the  freely  flow- 

ing bowl  enlivened  the  transaction  of  gild  business. 

As  a  protective  organization,  the  gild  had  been  particularly 

effective.     Backed  by  the  combined  forces  of  all  the  gildsmen, 

it  was  able  to  assert  itself  against  the  lord  who  claimed 

Protective  .   ,      .   ^  ,  .      .         , 

manorial  rights  over  the  town,  and  to  insist  that  a 

\  I  runaway  serf  who  had  lived  in  the  town  for  a  year  and  a  day 
Ijshould  not  be  dragged  back  to  perform  his  servile  labor  on  the 
manor,  but  should  be  recognized  as  akfreeinanT,  The  protection 
of  the  gild  was  accorded  also  to  townsmen  on  their  travels.  In 
those  days  all  strangers  were  regarded  as  suspicious  persons, 
and  not  infrequently  when  a  merchant  of  the  gild  traveled  to 
another  town  he  would  be  set  upon  and  robbed  or  cast  into 
prison.  In  such  cases  it  was  necessary  for  the  gild  to  ransom 
the  imprisoned  "brother"  and,  if  possible,  to  punish  the  persons 
who  had  done  the  injury,  so  that  thereafter  the  liberties  of  the 
gild  members  would  be  respected.  That  the  business  of  the 
gild  might  be  increased,  it  was  often  desirable  to  enter  into 
special  arrangements  with  neighboring  cities  whereby  the  rights, 
lives,  and  properties  of  gildsmen  were  guaranteed ;  and  the 
gild  as  a  whole  was  responsible  for  the  debts  of  any  of  its 
members. 

The  most  important  duty  of  the  gild  had  been  the  regulation 
of  the  home  market.     Burdensome  restrictions  were  laid  upon 
the  stranger  wjio  attempted  to  utilize  the  advantages 
of  the  market  without  sharing  the  expense  of  main- 
tenance.    No  goods  were  allowed  to  be  carried  away  from  the 
city  if  the  townsmen  wished  to  buy ;  and  a  tax,  called  in  France 


FOUNDATIONS   OF  MODERN   EUROPE  39 

the  oclroi,  was  levied  on  goods  brought  into  the  town.'  Moreover, 
a  conviction  prevailed  that  the  gild  was  morally  bound  to  en- 
force honest  straightforward  methods  of  business ;  and  the 
"wardens"  appointed  by  the  gild  to  supervise  the  market 
endeavorecTTo  prevent,  as  dishonest  practices,  "forestalling" 
(buying  outside  of  the  regular  market),  "engrossing"  (cornering 
the  market),^  and  "regrating"  (retailing  at  higher  than  market 
price).  The  dishonest  green-grocer  was  not  allowed  to  use  a 
peck-measure  with  false  bottom,  for  weighing  and  measuring 
were  done  by  officials.  Cheats  were  fined  heavily  and,  if  they 
persisted  in  their  evil  ways,  they  might  be  expelled  from  the  gild. 

These  merchant  gilds,  with  their  social,  protective,  and  regula- 
tive functions,  had  first  begun  to  be  important  in  the  eleventh 
century.  In  England,  where  their  growth  was  most  rapid,  82 
out  of  the  total  of  102  towns  had  merchant  gilds  by  the  end  of 
the  thirteenth  century.^  On  the  Continent  many  towns,  es- 
pecially in  Germany,  had  quite  different  arrangements,  and 
where  merchant  gilds  existed,  they  were  often  exclusive  and 
selfish  groups  of  merchants  in  a  single  branch  of  business. 

With  the  expansion  of  trade  and  industry  in  the  thirteenth 
and  fourteenth  centuries  the  rule  of  the  old  merchant  gilds, 
instead  of  keeping  pace  with  the  times,  became  op-  Decline  of 
pressive,    limited,    or   merely    nominal.     Where    the  Merchant 
merchant   gilds   became   oppressive    oligarchical    as- 
sociations, as  they  did  in  Germany  and  elsewhere  on  the  Conti- 
nent, they  lost  their  power  by  the  revolt  of  the  more  democratic 
"craft  gilds."     In_England  specialized  control  of  industry  and 
trade  by  craft_^ldsjourneymen's  gilds,  and  dealers'  associations 
gradually  took  the  place  of"  the  general  supervision  of  the  older 
rnercHanf  gilJ.   'After  suffering  the  loss  of  its  vital  functions, 
the  merchant  gild  by  the  sixteenth  century  either  quietly  suc- 
cumbed or  lived  on  with  power  in  a  limited  branch  of  trade, 
or  continued  as  an  honorary  organization  w4th  occasional  feasts, 
or,  and  this  was  especially  true  in  England,  it  became  prac- 

^  The  octroi  is  still  collected  in  Paris. 

2  The  idea  that  "combinations  in  restraint  of  trade"  are  wrong  quite  possibly 
goes  back  to  this  abhorrence  of  engrossing. 

^  Several  important  places,  such  as  London,  Colchester,  and  Norwich,  belonged 
to  the  small  minority  without  merchant  gilds. 


40  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

tically  identical  with  the  town  corporation,  from  which  origi- 
nally it  had  been  distinct. 

Alongside  of  the  merchant  gilds,  which  had  been  associated 
with  the  growth  of  commerce  and  the  rise  of  towns,  were  other 
J  ^  .  .  gilds  connected  with  the  growth  of  industry,  which 
the  Craft  retained  their  importance  long  after  1500.  These 
^^^^^  were  the  craft  gilds.'     Springing  into  prominence  in 

the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries,  the  craft  gild  some- 
times, as  in  Germany,  voiced  a  popular  revolt  against  corrupt 
.and  oHgarchical  merchant  gilds,  and  sometimes  —  most  fre- 
\quently  so  in  England  —  worked  quite  harmoniously  with  the 
fnerchant  gild,  to  which  its  own  members  belonged.  In  common 
with  the  merchant  gild,  the  craft  gild  had  religious  and  social 
aspects,  and  like  the  merchant  gild  it  insisted  on  righteous  deal- 
ings ;  but  unlike  the  merchant  gild  it  was  composed  of  men  in 
a  single  industry,  and  it  controlled  in  detail  the  manufacture  as 
well  as  the  marketing  of  commodities.  There  were  bakers' 
gilds,  brewers'  gilds,  smiths'  gilds,  saddlers'  gilds,  shoemakers' 
gilds,  weavers'  gilds,  tailors'  gilds,  tanners'  gilds,  even  gilds  of 
masters  of  arts  who  constituted  the  teaching  staff  of  colleges  and 
universities. 

When  to-day  we  speak  of  a  boy  "serving  his  apprenticeship" 
in  a  trade,  we  seldom  reflect  that  the  expression  is  derived  from 
a  practice  of  the  medieval  craft  gilds,  a  practice  which  survived 
after  the  gilds  were  extinct.  Apprenticeship  was  designed  to 
make  sure  that  recruits  to  the  trade  were  properly  trained. 
The  apprentice  was  usually  selected  as  a  boy  by  a  master- 
workman  and  indentured  —  that  is,  bound  to  work  several 
years  without  wages,  while  living  at  the  master's  house.  After 
the  expiration  of  this  period  of  apprenticeship,  during  which 
he  had  learned  his  trade  thoroughly,  the  youth  became  a 
1 1"  journeyman,"  and  worked  for  wages,  until  he  should  finally 
iireceive  admission  to  the  gild  as  a  master,  with  the  right  to  set 
up  his  own  little  shop,  with  apprentices  and  journeymen  of  his 
own,  and  to  sell  his  wares  directly  to  those  who  used  them. 

This  restriction  of  membership  was  not  the  only  way  in 
which  the  trade  was  supervised.     The  gild  had  rules  specifying 

'  The  craft  gild  was  also  called  a  comi)any,  or  a  mistcry,  or  nu'iicr  (French), 
or  Zunjt  (German). 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  41 

the  quality  of  materials  to  he  used  and  often,  likewise,  the 
methods  of  manufacture;  it  might  prohibit  night- work,  and  it 
usually  fixed  a  "fair  price"  at  which  goods  were  to  be  sold. 
By  means  of  such  provisions,  enforced  by  wardens  or  inspectors, 
the  gild  not  only  perpetuated  the  "good  old  way"  of  doing 
things,  but  guaranteed  to  the  purchaser  a  thoroughly  good 
article  at  a  fair  price. 

By  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  craft  gilds,  though 
not  so  weakened  as  the  merchant  gilds,  were  suffering  from 
various  internal  diseases  which  sapped  their  vitality,   partial 
They  tended  to  become  exclusive  and  to  direct  their  Decay  of 
power   and    affluence   in  hereditary   grooves.     They     ^^^^    ^^'^^ 
steadily  raised  their  entrance  fees  and  qualifications.     Struggles 
between  gilds  in  allied  trades,  such  as  spinning,  weaving,  fulling, 
and  dyeing,  often  resulted  in  the  reduction  of  several  gilds  to  a 
dependent  position.     The  regulation  of  the  processes  of  manu- 
facture, once  designed  to  keep  up  the  standard  of  skill,  came 
in  time  to  be  a  powerful  hindrance  to  technical  improvements ; 
and  in  the  method  as  well  as  in  the  amount  of  his  work,  the 
enterprising  master  found  himself  handicapped.     Even  the  old 
conscientiousness  often  gave  way  to  greed,  until  in  many  places 
inferior  workmanship  received  the  approval  of  the  gild. 

Many  craft  gilds  exhibited  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth 
centuries  a  tendency  to  split  somewhat  along  the  present  lines 
of  capital  and  labor.  On  the  one  hand  the  old  gild  organization 
would  be  usurped  and  controlled  by  the  wealthi-er  mastern 
workmen,  called  "livery  men,"  because  they  wore  rich  uniforms,!' 
or  a  class  of  dealers  would  arise  and  organize  a  "mer- 
chants' company"  to  conduct  a  wholesale  business  in  the  products 
of  a  particular  industry.  Thus  the  rich  drapers  sold  all  the 
cloth,  but  did  not  help  to  make  it.  On  the  other  hand  it  became 
increasingly  dithcult  for  journeymen  and  apprentices  to  rise  to 
the  station  of  masters ;  oftentimes  they  remained  wage-earners 
for  life.  In  order  to  better  their  condition  they  formed  new 
associations,  which  in  England  were  called  journeymen's  or 
yeomen's  companies.  These  new  organizations  were  sympto- 
matic of  injustice  but  otherwise  unimportant.  The  craft  gilds, 
with  all  their  imperfections,  were  to  continue  in  power  awhile 
longer,  slowly  giving  away  as  new  trades  arose  outside  of  their 


42  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

control,  gradually  succumbing  in  competition  with  capitalists 
who  refused  to  be  bound  by  gild  rules  and  who  were  to  evolve 
a  new  ''domestic  system,"  ^  and  slowly  suffering  diminution  of 
prestige  through  royal  interference. 

In  the  year  1500  the  European  towns  displayed  little  uni- 
formity in  government  or  in  the  amount  of  liberty  they  possessed. 
Life  in  the  Somc  wcrc  petty  republics  subject  only  in  a  very  vague 
Towns  ^yg^y  ^Q  a^j^  extraneous  potentate ;    some  merely  paid 

annual  tribute  to  a  lord ;  some  were  administered  by  officers  of 
a  king  or  feudal  magnate ;  others  were  controlled  by  oligarchical 
commercial  associations.  But  of  the  general  appearance  and 
life  of  sixteenth-century  towns,  it  is  possible  to  secure  a  more 
uniform  notion. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  towns  were  comparatively 
small,  for  the  great  bulk  of  people  still  lived  in  the  country.  A 
town  of  5000  inhabitants  was  then  accounted  large ;  and  even 
the  largest  places,  like  Nuremberg,  Strassburg,  London,  Paris, 
and  Bruges,  would  have  been  only  small  cities  in  our  eyes. 
The  approach  to  an  ordinary  city  of  the  time  lay  through  sub- 
urbs, farms,  and  garden-plots,  for  the  townsman  still  supple- 
mented industry  with  small-scale  agriculture.  Usually  the  town 
itself  was  inclosed  by  strong  walls,  and  admission  was  to  be 
gained  only  by  passing  through  the  gates,  where  one  might  be 
accosted  by  soldiers  and  forced  to  pay  toll.  Inside  the  walls 
were  clustered  houses  of  every  description.  Rising  from  the 
midst  of  tumble-down  dwellings  might  stand  a  magnificent 
cathedral,  town-hall,  or  gild  building.  Here  and  there  a  prosper- 
ous merchant  would  have  his  luxurious  home,  built  in  what  we 
now  call  the  Gothic  style,  with  pointed  windows  and  gables, 
and,  to  save  space  in  a  walled  town,  with  the  second  story  pro- 
jecting out  over  the  street. 

The  streets  were  usually  in  deplorable  condition.  There 
might  be  one  or  two  broad  highways,  but  the  rest  were  mere 
alleys,  devious,  dark,  and  dirty.  Often  their  narrowness  made 
them  impassable  for  wagons.  In  places  the  pedestrian  waded 
gallantly  through  mud  and  garbage;  pigs  grunted  ponderously 
as  he  pushed  them  aside ;    chickens  ran  under  his  feet ;    and 

'  See  Vol.  II,  ch.  .xviii. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  43 

occasionally  a  dead  dog  obstructed  the  way.  There  were  no 
sidewalks,  and  only  the  main  thoroughfares  were  paved.  Dirt 
and  tilth  and  refuse  were  ordinarily  disposed  of  only  when  a 
heaven-sent  rain  washed  them  down  the  open  gutters  constructed 
along  the  middle,  or  on  each  side,  of  a  street.  Not  only  was 
there  no  general  sewerage  for  the  town,  but  there  was  likewise 
no  public  water  supply.  In  many  of  the  garden  plots  at  the 
rear  of  the  low-roofed  dwellings  were  dug  wells  which  provided 
water  for  the  family ;  and  the  visitor,  before  he  left  the  town, 
would  be  likely  to  meet  with  water-sellers  calling  out  their  ware. 
To  guard  against  the  danger  of  fires,  each  municipality  en- 
couraged its  citizens  to  build  their  houses  of  stone  and  to  keep 
a  tub  full  of  water  before  every  building;  and  in  each  district 
a  special  official  was  equipped  with  a  proper  hook  and  cord  for 
pulling  down  houses  on  lire.  At  night  respectable  town-life  was 
practically  at  a  standstill :  the  gates  were  shut ;  the  curfew 
sounded ;  no  street-lamps  dispelled  the  darkness,  except  pos- 
sibly an  occasional  lantern  which  an  altruistic  or  festive  towns- 
man might  hang  in  his  front-window ;  and  no  efficient  poHce- 
force  existed  —  merely  a  handful  of  townsmen  were  drafted 
from  time  to  time  as  "watchmen"  to  preserve  order,  and  the 
"night  watch"  was  famed  rather  for  its  ability  to  sleep  or  to 
roister  than  to  protect  life  or  purse.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  citizen  who  would  escape  an  assault  by  ruffians  or  thieves 
remained  prudently  indoors  at  night  and  retired  early  to  bed. 
Picturesque  and  quaint  the  sixteenth-century  town  may  have 
been ;  but  it  was  also  an  uncomfortable  and  an  unhealthful 
place  in  which  to  live. 

TRADE   PRIOR   TO   THE   COMMERCIAL   REVOLUTION 

Just  as  agriculture  is  the  ultimate  basis  of  human  society, 
so  town-life  has  always  been  an  index  of  culture  and  civilization. 
And  the  fortunes  of  town-life  have  ever  depended  upon  the 
vicissitudes  of  trade  and  commerce.  So  the  reviving  commerce 
of  the  later  middle  ages  between  Europe  and  the  East  meant 
the  growth  of  cities  and  betokened  an  advance  in  civihzation. 

Trade  between  Europe  and  Asia,  which  had  been  a  feature 
of  the  antique  world  of  Greeks  and  Romans,  had  been  very 


^ 


44  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

nearly  destroyed  by  the  barbarian  invasions  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury and  by  subsequent  conflicts  between  Mohammedans  and 
Christians,  so  that  during  several  centuries  the  old 

Revival  of  ,  '  ,     i         ,       i  r  t 

Trade  trade-routes  were  traveled  only  by  a  few  Jews  and 

with  the         Syrians.     In  the  tenth  century,  however,  a  group  of 
.  towns  in  southern  Italy  —  Brindisi,  Bari,  Taranto,  and 

IJAmalfi  —  began   to  send  ships   to   the  eastern  Mediterranean 
and  were  soon  imitated  by  Venice  and  later  by  Genoa  and  Pisa. 

This  revival  of  intercourse  between  the  East  and  the  West 
was  well  under  way  before  the  first  Crusade,  but  the  Crusades. 
(1095  1270)  hastened  the  process.  Venice,  Genoa,  and  Pisa,  on 
account  of  their  convenient  location,  were  called  upon  to  furnish 
the  crusaders  with  transportation  and  provisions,  and  their 
shrewd  Italian  citizens  made  certain  that  such  ser\ices  were  well 
rewarded.  Italian  ships,  plying  to  and  from  the  Holy  Land,  grad- 
ually enriched  their  owners.  Many  Italian  cities  profited,  but 
Venice  secured  the  major  share.  It  was  during  the  Crusades 
that  Venice  gained  numerous  coastal  districts  and  islands  in 
the  ^gean  besides  immunities  and  privileges  in  Constantinople, 
and  thereby  laid  the  foundation  of  her  maritime  empire. 

The  Crusades  not  only  enabled  Italian  merchants  to  bring 
Eastern  commodities  to  the  West;  they  increased  the  demand 
for  such  commodities.  Crusaders  —  pilgrims  and  adventurers 
—  returned  from  the  Holy  Land  with  astonishing  tales  of  the 
luxury  and  opulence  of  the  East.  Not  infrequently  they  had 
acquired  a  taste  for  Eastern  silks  or  spices  during  their  stay 
in  Asia  Minor  or  Palestine;  or  they  brought  curious  jewels^ 
stripped  from  fallen  infidels  to  awaken  the  envy  of  the  stay-at- 
homes.  Wealth  was  rapidly  increasing  in  Europe  at  this  time, 
and  the  many  well-to-do  people  who  were  eager  to  affect  mag- 
nificence provided  a  ready  market  for  the  wares  imported  by 
Italian  merchants. 

It  is  desirable  to  note  just  what  were  these  wares  and  why 

they  were  demanded  so  insistently.     First  were  spices,  far  more 

important  then  than  now.     The  diet  of  those  times 

Commodi-  ^       .        ,  ,  •,!        ,  •   ^  e 

ties  of  was  Simple  and  monotonous  without  our  variety  01 

Eastern         vegetables  and  sauces  and  sweets,  and  the  meat,  if 

fresh,  was  likely  to  be  tough  in  fiber  and  strong  in 

flavor.     Spices  were  the  very  thing  to  add  zest  to  such  a  diet, 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  45 

and  without  them  the  epicure  of  the  sixteenth  century  would 
have  been  truly  miserable.  Ale  and  wine,  as  well  as  meats, 
were  spiced,  and  pepper  was  eaten  separately  as  a  delicacy>^ 
No  wonder  that,  although  the  rich  alone  could  1)U\-  it,  the  Vene- 
tians were  able  annually  to  dispose  of  420,000  pounds  of  pepper, 
which  they  purchased  from  the  sultan  of  Eg}pt,  to  whom  it 
was  brought,  after  a  hazardous  journey,  from  the  pepper  vines 
of  Ceylon,  Sumatra,  or  western  India.  From  the  same  regions 
came  cimiampn-Bark ;  ginger  was  a  product  of  Arabia,  India, 
and  China ;  and  nutmegs,  cloves,  and  allspice^  grew  only  in  the 
far-off  Spicelslands  of  the  Malay  Archipelago. 

Precious  stones  were  then,  as  always,  in  demand  for  personal 
adornment  as^well  as  for  the  decoration  of  shrines  and  eccle- 
siastical vestments ;  and  in  the  middle  ages  they  were  thought 
by  many  to  possess  magical  qualities  which  rendered  them 
doubly  valuable.^  The  supply  of  diamonds,  rubies,  pearls, 
and  other  precious  stones  was  then  almost  exclusively  from 
Persia,  India,  and  Ceylon. 

Other  miscellaneous  products  of  the  East  were  in  great  demand 
for  various  purposes  :  camphor  and  cubebs  from  Sumatra  and 
Borneo  ;  musk  from  China  ;  cane-sugar  from  Arabia  and  Persia  ; 
indigo,  sandal-wood,  and  aloes-wood  from  India;  and  alum 
from  Asia  Minor. 

The  East  was  not  only  a  treasure-house  of  spices,  jewels, 
valuable  goods,  and  medicaments,  but  a  factory  of  marvelously 
delicate  goods  and  wares  which  the  West  could  not  rival  — 
glass,  porcelain,  silks,  satins,  rugs,  tapestries,  and  metal-work. 
iTie  tradition  of  Asiatic  supremacy  in  these  manufactures  has 
been  preserved  to  our  own  day  in  such  familiar  names  as  damask 
linen,  china-ware,  japanned  ware,  Persian  rugs,  and  cashmere 
shawls. 

1  Medieval  literature  is  full  of  this  idea.  Thus  we  read  in  the  book  of  travel 
which  has  borne  the  name  of  Sir  John  Maundeville : 

"  And  if  you  Tvish  to  know  the  virtues  of  the  diamond,  I  shall  tell  you,  as  they  that 
are  beyond  the  seas  say  and  affirm,  from  whom  all  science  and  philosophy  comes. 
He  who  carries  the  diamond  upon  him,  it  gives  him  hardiness  and  manhood,  and 
it  keeps  the  limbs  of  his  body  whole.  It  gives  him  \actory  over  his  enemies,  in 
court  and  in  war,  if  his  cause  be  just ;  and  it  keeps  him  that  bears  it  in  good  wit ; 
and  it  keeps  him  from  strife  and  riot,  from  sorrows  and  enchantments,  and  from 
fantasies  and  illusions  of  wicked  spirits.  .  .  .  [It]  heals  him  that  is  lunatic,  and 
those  whom  the  fiend  torments  or  pursues." 


46  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

In  exchange  for  the  manifold  products  of  the  East,  Europe 
had  only  rough  woolen  cloth,  arsenic,  antimony,  quicksilver, 
tin,  copper,  lead,  and  coral  to  give;  and  a  balance,  therefore, 
always  existed  for  the  European  merchant  to  pay  in  gold  and 
silver,  with  the  result  that  gold  and  silver  coins  grew  scarce  in 
the  West.  It  is  hard  to  say  what  would  have  happened  had 
not  a  new  supply  of  the  precious  metals  been  discovered  in 
America.     But  we  are  anticipating  our  story. 

Nature  has  rendered  intercourse  between  Europe  and  Asia 
exceedingly  difficult  by  reason  of  a  vast  stretch  of  almost  im- 
Orientai  passable  waste,  extending  from  the  bleak  plains  on 
Trade-  either  side  of  the  Ural  hills  down  across  the  steppes 

Routes  ^£  Turkestan  and  the  desert  of  Arabia  to  the  great 

sandy  Sahara.  Through  the  few  gaps  in  this  desert  barrier 
V^  have  led  from  early  times  the  avenues  of  trade.  In  the  fifteenth 
century  three  main  trade-routes  —  a  central,  a  southern,  and 
a  northern  —  precariously  linked  the  two  continents. 

(i)  The  central  trade-route  utilized  the  valley  of  the  Tigris 
River.  Goods  from  China,  from  the  Spice  Islands,  and  from 
India  were  brought  by  odd  native  craft  from  point  to  point 
along  the  coast  to  Ormuz,  an  important  city  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Persian  Guff,  thence  to  the  mouth  of  the  Tigris,  and  up  the 
valley  to  Bagdad.  From  Bagdad  caravans  journeyed  either 
to  Aleppo  and  Antioch  on  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean, or  across  the  desert  to  Damascus  and  the  ports  on  the 
Syrian  coast.  Occasionally  caravans  detoured  southward  to 
Cairo  and  Alexandria  in  Egypt.  Whether  at  Antioch,  JafTa, 
\x0r  Alexandria,  the  caravans  met  the  masters  of  Venetian  ships 
\lready  to  carry  the  cargo  to  Europe. 

(2)  The  southern  route  was  by  the  Red  Sea.  Arabs  sailed 
their  ships  from  India  and  the  Far  East  across  the  Indian  Ocean 
and  into  the  Red  Sea,  whence  they  transferred  their  cargoes  to 
caravans  which  completed  the  trip  to  Cairo  and  Alexandria. 
By  taking  advantage  of  monsoons,  —  the  favorable  winds  which 
blew  steadily  in  certain  seasons,  —  the  skipper  of  a  merchant 
vessel  could  make  the  voyage  from  India  to  Egypt  in  somewhat 
less  than  three  months.  It  was  often  possible  to  shorten  the 
time  by  landing  the  cargoes  at  Ormuz  and  thence  dispatching 
them  by  caravan  across  the  desert  of  Arabia  to  Mecca,  and  so 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  47 

to  the  Red  Sea,  but  caravan  travel  was  sometimes  slower  and 
always  more  hazardous  than  sailing. 

(3)  The  so-called  "northern  route"  was  rather  a  system  of 
routes  leading  in  general  from  the  "back  doors"  of  India  and 
China  to  the  Black  Sea.  Caravans  from  India  and  China 
met  at  Samarkand  and  Bokhara,  two  famous  cities  on  the  west- 
em  slope  of  the  Tian-Shan  Mountains.  West  of  Bokhara  the 
route  branched  out.  Some  caravans  went  north  of  the  Caspian, 
through  Russia  to  Novgorod  and  the  Baltic.  Other  caravans 
passed  through  Astrakhan,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Volga  River, 
and  terminated  in  ports  on  the  Sea  of  Azov.  Still  others  skirted 
the  shore  of  the  Caspian  Sea,  passing  through  Tabriz  and 
Armenia  to  Trebizond  on  the  Black  Sea. 

The  transportation  of  goods  from  the  Black  Sea  and  eastern 
Mediterranean  was  largely  in  the  hands  of  the  Italian  cities,^ 
especially  Venice,  Genoa,  Pisa,  and  Florence,  although  Marseilles 
and  Barcelona  had  a  small  share.  From  Italy  trade-routes  led 
through  the  passes  of  the  Alps  to  all  parts  of  Europe.  German 
merchants  from  Nuremberg,  Augsburg,  Ulm,  Regensburg,  and 
Constance  purchased  Eastern  commodities  in  the  markets  of 
Venice,  and  sent  them  back  to  the  Germanics,  to  England,  and 
to  the  Scandinavian  countries.  After  the  lapse  of  many  months, 
and  even  years,  since  the  time  when  spices  had  been  packed  first 
in  the  distant  Moluccas,  they  would  be  exposed  finally  for  sale 
at  the  European  fairs  or  markets  to  which  thousands  of  country- 
folk resorted.  There  a  nobleman's  steward  could  lay  in  a 
year's  supply  of  condiments,  or  a  peddler  could  fill  his  pack 
with  silks  and  ornaments  to  delight  the  eyes  of  the  ladies  in 
many  a  lonesome  castle. 

Within   Europe   commerce  gradually  extended  its  scope  in 
spite  of  the  almost  insuperable  difficulties.     The  roads  were 
still  so  miserable  that  wares  had  to  be  carried  on  Difficulties 
pack-horses  instead  of  in  wagons.     Frequently  the  of  European 
merchant  had  to  risk  spoiling  his  bales  of  silk  in  ford- 
ing a  stream,  for  bridges  were  few  and  usually  in  urgent  need  of 

^  In  general,  the  journey  from  the  Far  East  to  the  ports  on  the  Black  Sea  and 
the  eastern  Mediterranean  was  performed  by  Arabs,  although  some  of  the  more 
enterprising  Italians  pushed  on  from  the  European  settlements,  or  fondacki,  in 
ports  like  Cairo  and  Trebizond,  and  established  fondachi  in  the  inland  cities  of  Asia 
Minor,  Persia,  and  Russia. 


48  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

repair.  Travel  not  only  was  frought  with  hardship ;  it  was 
expensive.  Feudal^  lords  exacted  heavy  tolls  from  travelers 
on  road,  bridge,  or  river.  Between  Mainz  and  Cologne,  on  the 
_v  Rhine,  toll  was  levied  in  thirteen  different  places.  The  con- 
struction of  shorter  and  better  highways  was  blocked  often 
by  nobles  who  feared  to  lose  their  toll-rights  on  the  old  roads. 
So  heavy  was  the  burden  of  tolls  on  commerce  that  transporta- 
tion from  Nantes  to  Orleans,  a  short  distance  up  the  River 
Loire,  doubled  the  price  of  goods.  Besides  the  tolls,  one  had 
to  pay  for  local  market  privileges ;  towns  exacted  taxes  on  im- 
ports ;  and  the  merchant  in  a  strange  city  or  village  often  found 
himself  seriously  handicapped  by  regulations  against  "for- 
eigners," and  by  unfamiliar  weights,  measures,  and  coinage. 

Most  dreaded  of  all,  however,  and  most  injurious  to  trade 
were  the  robbers  who  infested  the  roads.  Needy  knights  did 
not  scruple  to  turn  highwaymen.  Cautious  travelers  carried 
arms  and  journeyed  in  bands,  but  even  they  were  not  wholly 
safe  from  the  dashing  "gentlemen  of  the  road."  On  the 
seas  there  was  still  greater  danger  from  pirates.  Fleets  of 
merchantmen,  despite  the  fact  that  they  were  accompanied 
usually  by  a  vessel  of  war,  often  were  assailed  by  corsairs,  de- 
feated, robbed,  and  sold  as  prizes  to  the  Mohammedans.  The 
black  flag  of  piracy  flew  over  whole  fleets  in  the  Baltic  and  in 
the  Mediterranean.  The  amateur  pirate,  if  less  formidable, 
was  no  less  common,  for  many  a  vessel  carrying  brass  cannon, 
ostensibly  for  protection,  found  it  convenient  to  use  them  to 
attack  foreign  craft  and  more  frequently  "took"  a  cargo  than 
purchased  one. 

These  dangers  and  difficulties  of  commercial  intercourse  were 
due  chiefly  to  the  lack  of  any  strong  power  to  punish  pirates 
„    .  or  highwaymen,  to  maintain  roads,  or  to  check  the 

Venice  .  . 

exactions  of  toll-collectors.  Each  city  attempted  to 
protect  its  own  commerce.  A  great  city-state  like  Venice  was 
well  able  to  send  out  her  galleys  against  Mediterranean  pirates, 
to  wage  war  against  the  rival  city  of  Genoa,  to  make  treaties 
with  Oriental  potentates,  and  to  build  up  a  maritime  empire. 
Smaller  towns  were  helpless.  But  what,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
German  towns,  they  could  not  do  alone,  was  partially  achieved 
by  combination. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   ^lODERN   EUROPE  49 

The  HansL-  or  ihd  Hanscatit    l.catiiuel  as  the  lonfrd, ■ration  of 
Cologne,  Brunswick,  Hamburg,  Liibeck,  Dantzig,    Konigsberg, 
and "  other    German    cities    was    called,    waged    war  ^^^ 
against    the    Baltic    pirates,    maintained  its    trade-  Hanseatic 
routes,    and  negotiated  with   monarchs  and  munici-     ^^^"^ 
})alities  in  order  to  obtain  exceptional  privileges.     From  their 
Baltic  stations,  —  Novgorod,  Stockholm,    Konigsberg,    etc.,  — 
the  Hanseatic  merchants  brought  amber,  wax,  fish,  furs,  timber,.  / 
and  tar  to  sell  in  the  markets  of  Bruges,  London,  and  Venice;^ 
they  returned  with  wheat,  wine,  salt,  metals,  cloth,  and  beer 
for  their  Scandinavian  and  Russian  customers.     The  German 
trading  post  at  Venice  received  metals,  furs,  leather  goods,  and 
woolen  cloth  from  the  North,  and  sent  back  spices,  silks,  and 
other  commodities  of  the  East,  together  with  glassware,  fine 
textiles,  weapons,  and  paper  of  Venetian  manufacture.     Baltic 
and   Venetian   trade-routes   crossed   in   the   Nether- 
lands,   and    during    the   fourteenth    century    Bruges  ^^J^^       '' 


became    the    trade-metropolis    of    western    Europe,   Nether- 
lands : 
Bruges 


where  met  the  raw  wool  from  England  and  Spain, 


\the  manufactured  woolen  cloth  of  Flanders,  clarets 
from  France,  sherry  and  port  wines  from  the  Iberian  peninsula, 
pitch  from  Sweden,  tallow  from  Norway,  grain  from  France 
and  Germany,  and  English  tin,  not  to  mention  Eastern  luxuries, 
Venetian  manufactures,  and  the  cunning  carved-work  of  south- 
German  artificers. 

THE   AGE   OF  EXPLORATION 

In   the  unprecedented  commercial  prosperity  which  marked 

the  fifteenth  century,  two  European  peoples — the  Portuguese 

and  the  Spanish  —  had  little  part.     For  purposes  oi 

general  Continental  trade  they  were  not  so  conven-  Spaniards 

iently  situated  as  the  peoples  of  Germany  and  the  ^^^^ 

Netherlands ;  and  the  Venetians  and  other  ItaHans  for 

had  shut  them  off  from  direct  trade  with  Asia.     Yet  New  Trade- 

Routes 
Spanish  and  Portuguese    had  developed   much    the 

same  taste  for  Oriental  spices  and  wares  as  had  the  inhabitants 

of  central  Europe,  and  they  begrudged   the  exorbitant  prices 

which    they  were    compelled    to    pay    to    Italian    merchants. 


50  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Moreover,  their  centuries-long  crusades  against  Mohammedans 
in  the  Iberian  peninsula  and  in  northern  Africa  had  bred  in 
them  a  stern  and  zealous  Christianity  which  urged  them  on  to 
undertake  missionary  enterprises  in  distant  pagan  lands.  This 
missionary  spirit  reenforced  the  desire  they  already  entertained 
of  finding  new  trade-routes  to  Asia  untrammeled  by  rival  and 
selfish  Italians.  In  view  of  these  circumstances  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  Spaniards  and  Portuguese  sought  eagerly  in  the 
fifteenth  century  to  find  new  trade-routes  to  "the  Indies." 

In  their  search  for  new  trade-routes  to  the  lands  of  silk  and 
spice,  these  peoples  of  southwestern  Europe  were  not  as  much 
GeoKTaph-  ^^  ^^^  dark  as  sometimes  we  are  inclined  to  believe, 
icai  Knowi-  Geographical  knowledge,  almost  non-existent  in  the 
^  ^^  earlier    middle    ages,    had    been    enriched    by    the 

Franciscan  friars  who  had  traversed  central  Asia  to  the 
court  of  the  Mongol  emperor  as  early  as  1245,  and  by  such 
merchants  and  travelers  as  Marco  Polo,  who  had  been 
attached  to  the  court  of  Kublai  Khan  and  who  subsequently 
had  described  that  potentate's  realms  and  the  wealth  of 
.  (  "Cipangu"  (Japan),  These  travels  afforded  at  once  informa- 
■  I  'tion  about  Asia  and  enormous  incentive  to  later  explorers. 

Popular  notions  that  the  waters  of  the  tropics  boiled,  that 
demons  and  monsters  awaited  explorers  to  the  westward,  and 
that  the  earth  was  a  great  flat  disk,  did  not  pass  current  among 

well-informed    geographers.     Especially    since    the   leyival o,f 

Ptolemy's  works  in  the  fifteenth  century,  learned jmen  asserted 
tTiat  the  earth  was  spherical  in  shape,  and  they  even  calculated 
its  circumference,  erring  only  by  two  or  three  thousand  miles. 
It  was  maintained  repeatedly  that  the  Indies  formed  the  west- 
p?f~ern  boundary  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  that  consequently 
they  might  be  reached  by  sailing  due  west,  as  well  as  by  travel- 
ing eastward ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  was  believed  that  shorter 
routes  might  be  found  northeast  of  Europe,  or  southward  around 
Africa. 

Along  with  this  general  knowledge  of  the  situation  of  con- 
tinents, the  sailors  of  the  fifteenth  century  had  learned  a  good 
„    .     .        deal  about  navigation.     The  compass  had  been  used 

Navigation  1        t      i-  •  •        1         1  •  i 

first  by  Italian  navigators  m  the  thirteenth  century, 
and  mounted  on  the  compass  card  in  the  fourteenth.     Latitude 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  51 

was  determined  with  the  aid  of  the  kstrolalu-,  a  device  for  measur-  i/ 
ing  the  elevation  of  the  pole  star  above  the  horizon.  With 
maps  and  accurate  sailing  directions  {porlolani),  seamen  could 
lose  sight  of  land  and  still  feel  confident  of  their  whereabouts. 
Yet  it  undoubtedly  took  courage  for  the  explorers  of  the  fifteenth 
century  to  steer  their  frail  sailing  vessels  either  down  the  un- 
explored African  coast  or  across  the  uncharted  Atlantic  Ocean. 

In  the  series  of  world-discoveries  which  brought  about  the 
Commercial  Revolution  and  which  are  often  taken  as  the  be- 
ginning of  "modern  history,"  there  is  no  name  more  ^j^g 
illustrious  than  that  of  a  Portuguese  prince  of  the  Portuguese 
blood,  —  Prince  Henry,  the  Navigator  (1394-1460),     ^porers^ 
who,  with  the  support  of  two  successive  Portuguese  kings,  made 
the  first  systematic  attempts  to  convert  the  theories  of  geog- 
raphers into  proved  fact.     A  variety  of  motives  were  his :    the 
stern  zeal  of  the  crusader  against  the  infidel ;  the  ardent  proselyt-  '^ 
ing  spirit  which  already  had  sent  Franciscan  monks  into  the 
heart   of   Asia ;     the   hope   of   reestablishing   intercourse   with  ,., 
"Prester  John's"   fabled   Christian  empire  of  the  East;    the 
love  of  exploration ;    and  a  desire  to  gain  for  Portugal  a  share 
of  the  Eastern  trade. 

To  his  naval  training-station  at  Sagres  and  the  neighboring 
port  of  Lagos,  Prince  Henry  attracted  the  most  skillful  Italian 
navigators  and  the  most  learned  geographers  of  the  day.  The 
expeditions  which  he  sent  out  year  after  year  rediscovered  and 
colonized  the  Madeira  and  Azores  Islands,  and  crept  further  \ 
and  further  down' "the  unknown  coast  of  the  Dark  Continent. 
When  in  the  year  1445,  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  the  initial 
efforts  of  Prince  Henry,  Denis  Diaz  reached  Cape  Verde,  he 
thought  that  the  turning  point  was  at  hand ;  but  four  more 
weary  decades  were  to  elapse  before  Bartholomew  Diaz,  in 
1488,  attained  the  southernmost  point  of  the  African  coast. 
What  he  then  called  the  Cape  of  Storms,  King  John  II  of  Portugal 
in  a  more  optimistic  vein  rechristened  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  Y 
Following  in  the  wake  of  Diaz,  Vasco  da  Gama  rounded  the 
Cape  in  1497,  ^^^  then,  continuing  on  his  own  way,  he  sailed 
up  the  east  coast  to  Malindi,  where  he  found  a  pilot  able  to 
guide  his  course  eastward  through  the  Indian  Ocean  to  India. 
At  Cahcut  Vasco  da  Gama  landed  in  May,  1498,  and  there  he 


52  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

erected  a  marble  pillar  as  a  monument  of  his  discovery  of  a 
new  route  to  the  Indies. 

While  the  Portuguese  were  discovering  this  new  and  all-water 
route  to  the  Indies,  the  more  ancient  Mediterranean  and  over- 
Occupation  land  routes,  which  had  been  of  inestimable  value  to 
of  Old  lY^Q  Italians,   were  in  process  of  occupation  by  the 

Routes  by  Ottoman  Turks. ^  These  Turks,  as  we  have  seen, 
the  Turks  were  a  nomadic  and  warlike  nation  of  the  Mo- 
hammedan faith  who  "added  to  the  Moslem  contempt 
for  the  Christian,  the  warrior's  contempt  for  the  mere  mer- 
chant." Realizing  that  advantageous  trade  relations  with 
such  a  people  were  next  to  impossible,  the  Italian  merchants 
viewed  with  consternation  the  advance  of  the  Turkish  armies, 
as  Asia  Minor,  Thrace,  Macedonia,  Greece,  and  the  islands  of 
the  yEgean  were  rapidly  overrun.  Constantinople,  the  heart 
of  the  Eastern  Empire,  repeatedly  repelled  the  Moslems,  but 
in  1453  Emperor  Constantine  XI  was  defeated  by  Sultan  Mo- 
hammed II,  and  the  crescent  replaced  the  Greek  cross  above 
the  Church  of  Saint  Sophia.  Eight  years  later  Trebizond,  the 
terminal  of  the  trade-route  from  Tabriz,  was  taken.  In  vain 
Venice  attempted  to  defend  her  possessions  in  the  Black  Sea 
and  in  the  /Egean ;  by  the  year  1500  most  of  her  empire  in  the 
Levant  was  lost.  The  Turks,  now  in  complete  control  of  the 
northern  route,  proceeded  to  impose  crushing  burdens  on  the 
trade  of  the  defeated  Venetians.  Florentines  and  other  Italians 
who  fared  less  hardly  continued  to  frequent  the  Black  Sea,  but 
the  entire  trade  suffered  from  Turkish  exactions  and  from  dis- 
turbing wars  between  the  Turks  and  another  Asiatic  people  — 
the  Mongols. 

For  some  time  the  central  and  southern  routes,  terminating 
respectively  in  Syria  and  Egypt,  exhibited  increased  activity, 

^  Professor  A.  H.  Lybyer  has  recently  and  ably  contended  that,  contrary  to  a 
view  which  has  often  prevailed,  the  occupation  of  the  medieval  trade-routes  by 
the  Ottoman  Turks  was  not  the  cause  of  the  Portuguese  and  Spanish  explora- 
-tions  which  ushered  in  the  Commercial  Revolution.  He  has  pointed  out 
that  prior  to  1500  the  prices  of  spices  were  not  generally  raised  throughout 
western  Europe,  and  that  apparently  before  that  dale  the  Turks  had  not  seri- 
ously increased  the  difficulties  of  Oriental  trade.  In  confirmation  of  this 
opinion,  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  Portuguese  had  begun  their  epochal 
explorations  long  before  1500  and  that  Christopher  Columbus  had  already  re- 
turned from  "  the  Indies." 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  53 

and  by  rich  protits  in  Alexandria  the  Venerians  were  able  to 
retrieve  their  losses  in  the  Black  Sea.     But  it  was  only  a  matter 
of  time  before  the  Turks,  conquering  Damascus  in  15 16  Loss  to  the 
and  Cairo  in  151 7,  extended  their  burdensome  restric-  Italians 
tions  and  taxes  over  those  regions  likewise.     Eastern  luxuries, 
transported  by  caravan  and  caravel  over  thousands  of  miles, 
had  been  expensive  and  rare  enough  before;    now  the  added 
peril  of  travel  and  the  exactions  of  the  Turks  bade  fair  to  deprive 
the  ItaHans  of  the  greater  part  of  their  Oriental  trade.      It  was 
at  this  very  moment  that  the  Portuguese  opened  up  independ- 
ent   routes    to  the    East,    lowered  'TEie  pl-ices    of  Asiatic  com-\\ 
modlties,  and  grasped  the  ^scepter^of  maritime  and  commercial  \| 
power    which _^as  gradually  ^Irpjm^~from  the  hands  ot  "the* 
Venetians^     The  misfortune  of  Venice  was  the  real  opportunity' 
of  Portugal. 

Meanwhile  Spain  had  entered  the  field,  and  was  meeting 
with  cruel  disappointment.  A  decade  before  Vasco  da  Gama's 
famous   voyage,    an    Italian   navigator,    Christopher   „  , 

r^     ^  ^  11  ,       i    •  fr  i  o  •    i        ColumbuS 

Columbus,  had  presented  himseli  at  the  Spanish 
court  with  a  scheme  for  sailing  westward  to  the  Indies.  The 
Portuguese  king,  by  whom  Columbus  formerly  had  been  em- 
ployed, already  had  refused  to  support  the  project,  but  after 
several  vexatious  rebuffs  Columbus  finally  secured  the  aid  of 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  the  Spanish  monarchs  who  were  at 
the  time  jubilant  over  their  capture  of  Granada  from  the  Mo- 
hammedans (January,  1492).  In  August,  1492,  he  sailed  from 
Palos  with  100  men  in  three  small  ships,  the  largest  of  which 
weighed  only  a  hundred  tons.  After  a  tiresome  voyage  he 
landed  (12  October,  1492)  on  "San  Salvador,"  one  of  the  Ba- 
hama Islands.  In  that  bold  voyage  across  the  trackless  Atlantic 
lay  the  greatness  of  Columbus.  He  was  not  attempting  to 
prove  a  theory  that  the  earth  was  spherical  —  that  was  ac- 
cepted generally  by  the  well  informed.  Nor  was  he  in  search 
of  a  new  continent.  The  realization  that  he  had  discovered 
not  Asia,  but  a  new  world,  would  have  been  his  bitterest  dis- 
appointment. He  was  seeking  merely  another  route  to  the 
spices  and  treasures  of  the  East ;  and  he  bore  with  him  a  royal 
letter  of  introduction  to  the  great  Klian  of  Cathav~(ChinaL  /v 
In  his  quest  he  failed,  even  though  he  returned  in  1493,  in  1498, 


54  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  finally  in  1502  and  explored  successively  the  Caribbean 
SeaT'ttie  coast  ofVenezuela,  and  Central  America  in  a  vain 
search  for  the  island  "Cipangu"  and  the  realms  of  the  "Great 
Khan."  He  found  only  "lands  of  vanity  and  delusion  as  the 
miserable  graves  of  Castilian  gentlemen,"  and  he  died  ignorant 
of  the  magnitude  of  his  real  achievement. 

Had  Columbus  perished  in  mid-ocean,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
America   would   have   remained   long   undiscovered.     In    1497 

John  Cabot,  an  Itahan  in  the  service  of  Henry  VII  "^ 
of  England,  reached  Cape  Breton'  Island*  off  the 
Canadian  coast.  Inijoo  Cabral  with  a  Portuguese  expedition 
bound  for  IndTawas  so  far  driven  out  of  his  course  by  equatorial . 
*  cu^ents  that  he  came  upon  Brazil,  which  he  claimed  for  the  king 
of  Portugal.  Yet  America  was  named  for  neither  Columbus, 
Cabot,  nor  Cabral,  but  for  another  Itahan,  the  Florentine 
Amerigo  Vespucci,  who,  returning  from  voyages  to  Brazil 
(1499-1500),  wrote  a  little  book  on  what  he  called  "the  new 
world."  It  was  thought  that  he  had  discovered  this  new  world, 
and  so  it  was  called  after  him,  —  America. 

Very  slowly  the  truth  about  America  was  borne  in  upon  the 
people  of  Europe.     They  persisted  in  calhng  the  newly  dis- 
covered lands  the  "Indies,"  and  even  after  Balboa  had 
cumnaviga-    discovered  (1513)  that  another  ocean  lay  beyond  the 
tion  of  Isthmus  of  Panama,  it  was  thought  that  a  few  days' 

the  Earth  --' ,,,.  ,  ,.  .         •'    . 

sail  would  brmg  one  to  the  outiymg  possessions  01 
the  Great  Khan.  Not  until  Magellan,  leaving  Spain  in  15 19, 
Yypassed  through  the  straits  that  still  bear  his  name  and  crossed 
>^the  Pacific  was  this  vain  hope  relinquished.  Magellan  was 
killed  by  the  natives  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  but  one  of  his 
ships  reached  Lisbon  in  1522  with  the  tale  of  the  marvelous 
voyage. 

Even  after  the  circumnavigation  of  the  world  explorers  looked 
for  channels  leading  through  or  around  the  Americas.  Such 
were  the  attempts  of  Verrazano  (1524),  Cartier  (1534),  Fro- 
bisher  (1576-1578),  Davis  (1585-1587),  and  Henry  Hudson  in 
1609. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF    MODERN   EUROPE  55 

ESTABLISHMENT  OF   COLONIAL  EMPIRES 

When  Vasco  da  Gama  returned  to  Lisbon  in  1499  with  a 
cargo  worth  sixty  times  the  cost  of  his  expedition,  the  Portuguese 
knew  that  the  wealth  of  the  Indies  was  theirs.  Cabral 
in  1500,  and  Albuquerque  in  1503,  followed  the  route 
of  Da  Gama,  and  thereafter  Portuguese  fleets  rounded  the  Capej 
year  by  year  to  gain  control  of  Ormuz,  Diu  (India),  Goa  (India),! 
Ceylon,  Malacca,  Sumatra,  Java,  Celebes,  New  Guinea,  the 
Spice  Islands,  and  Nanking  (1520),  returning  with  rich  cargoes 
of  "spicery."  After  the  Turkish  conquest  of  Egypt  in  151 7 
the  bulk  of  commerce  was  carried  on  by  way  of  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope,  for  it  was  cheaper  to  transport  goods  by  sea  than 
to  pay  tribute  to  the  Turks  in  addition  to  caravan  cartage. 
Lisbon  rapidly  gained  prominence  as  a  market  for  Eastern 
wares. 

The  Portuguese  triumph  was  short-lived.  Dominion  overil 
half  the  world  —  for  Portugal  claimed  all  Africa,  southern  |1  ^ 
Asia,  and  Brazil  as  hers  by  right  of  discovery  —  had  been  ac- 
quired by  the  wise  poHcy  of  the  Portuguese  royal  house,  but 
Portugal  had  neither  products  of  her  own  to  ship  to  Asia,  nor 
the  might  to  defend  her  exclusive  right  to  the  carrying  trade 
with  the  Indies.  The  annexation  of  Portugal  to  Spain  (1580) 
by  PhiHp  II  precipitated  disaster.  The  port  of  Lisbon  was 
closed  to  the  French,  English,  and  Dutch,  with  whom  Philip 
was  at  war,  and  much  of  the  colonial  empire  of  Portugal  was 
conquered  speedily  by  the  Dutch. 

On  the  first  voyage  of  Columbus  Spain  based  her  claim  to 
share  the  world  with  Portugal.     In  order  that  there  might  be 
perfect  harmony  between  the  rival  explorers  of  the  g 
unknown  seas.  Pope  Alexander  VI  issued  on  4  May, 
1493,   the  famous  bull '   attempting  to  divide  the  uncivilized  11  ^ 
parts  of  the  world  between  Spain  and  Portugal  by  the  "papal  ^* 
line  of  demarcation,"  drawn  from  pole  to  pole,   100  leagues 
west  of  the  Azores.     A  year  later  the  line  was  shifted  to  about 
360  leagues  west  of  the  Cape  Verde  Islands.     Portugal  had 
the  eastern  half  of  modern  Brazil,  Africa,  and  all  other  heathen 
lands  in  that  hemisphere  ;  the  rest  comprised  the  share  of  Spain. 

^  A  bull  was  a  solemn  letter  or  edict  issued  by  the  pope. 


56  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

For  a  time  the  Spanish  adventurers  were  disappointed  tre- 
mendously to  find  neither  spices  nor  silks  and  but  little  gold 
in  the  "Indies,"  and  Columbus  was  derisively  dubbed  the 
"Admiral  of  the  Mosquitos."  In  spite  of  failures  the  search  for 
wealth  was  prosecuted  with  vigor.  During  the  next  half  cen- 
tury Haiti,  called  Hispaniola  ("Spanish  Isle"),  served  as  a 
starting  point  for  the  occupation  of  Puerto  Rico,  Cuba  (1508), 
and  other  islands.  An  aged  adventurer,  Ponce  de  Leon,  in 
search  of  a  fountain  of  youth,  explored  Florida  in  15 13,  and 
^subsequent  expeditions  pushed  on  to  the  Mississippi,  across  the 
(jplain  of  Texas,  and  even  to  California. 

Montezuma,  ruler  of  the  ancient  Aztec '  confederacy  of 
Mexico,  was  overthrown  in  1510  loy  the  reckless  Hernando 
Cortez  with  a  small  band  of  soldiers.  Here  at  last  the  Spaniards 
-Xfound  treasures  of  gold  and  silver,  and  more  abundant  yet 
were  tlic  stores  of  precious  metal  found  by  Pizarro  in/'Feru^ 
(1531).  Those  were  the  days  when  a  few  score  of  brave  men 
could  capture  kingdoms  and  carry  away  untold  wealth. 

In  the  next  chapter  we  shall  see  how  the  Spanish  monarchy, 
backed  by  the  power  of  American  riches,  dazzled  the  eyes  of 
Europe  in  the  sixteenth  century.  Not  content  to  see  his  standard 
waving  over  almost  half  of  Europe,  and  all  America  (except 
Brazil),  Philip  II  of  Spain  by  conquering  Portugal  in  1580 
added  to  his  possessions  the  Portuguese  empire  in  the  Orient. 
The  gold  mines  of  America^,4:he  spices  of  Asia,  and  the  busiest 
s.'>^market  of  Europe  —  Antwerp' —  all  paid  tribute  to  his  Catholic 
Majest}-,  PhiHp  II  of  Spain. 

By  an  unwise  administration  of  this  vast  empire,  Spain,  in 
the  course  of  time,  killed  the  goose  that  laid  the  golden  egg. 
The  native  Indians,  enslaved  and  lashed  to  their  work  in  Peru- 
vian and  Mexican  silver  mines,  rapidly  lost  even  their  primitive 
civilization  and  died  in  alarming  numbers.  This  in  itself  would 
not  have  weakened  the  monarchy  greatly,  but  it  appeared  more 
serious  when  we  remember  that  the  high-handed  and  harassing 
regulations  imposed  by  short-sighted  or  selfish  officials  had 
checked   the  growth  of  a  healthy  agricultural  and  industrial 

*  The  Aztec  Indians  of  Mexico,  like  various  other  tril)es  in  Central  America  and 
in  Peru,  had  reached  in  many  respects  a  high  degree  of  civilization  before  the 
arrival  of  Europeans. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  57 

population  in  the  colonies,  and  that  the  bulk  of  the  silver  was 
going  to  support  the  pride  of  grandees  and  to  swell  the  fortunes 
of  German  speculators,  rather  than  to  fill  the  royal  coffers. 
The  taxes  levied  on  trade  with  the  colonies  were  so  exorbitant 
that  the  commerce  with  America  fell  largely  into  the  hands  of 
English  and  Dutch  smugglers.  Under  wise  government  the 
monopoly  of  the  African  trade-route  might  have  proved  ex- 
tremely valuable,  but  Philip  II,  absorbed  in  other  matters, 
allowed  this,  too,  to  slip  from  his  fingers. 

While  the  Spanish  monarchy  was  thus  reaping  little  benefit 
from  its  world-wide  colonial  possessions,  it  was  neglecting  to 
encourage  prosperity  at  home.  Trade  and  manufacture  had 
expanded  enormously  in  the  sixteenth  century  in  the  hands  of 
the  Jews  and  Moors.  Woolen  manufactures  supported  nearly 
a  third  of  the  population.  The  silk  manufacture  had  become 
important.  It  is  recorded  that  salt-works  of  the  region  about 
Santa  Maria  often  sent  out  fifty  shiploads  at  a  time. 

These  signs  of  growth  soon  gave  way  to  signs  of  decay  and 
depopulation.  Chief  among  the  causes  of  ruin  were  the  taxes, 
increased  enormously  during  the  sixteenth  century.  Property 
taxes,  said  to  have  increased  30  per  cent,  ruined  farmers,  and 
the  "alcabala,"  or  tax  on  commodities  bought  and  sold,  was 
increased  until  merchants  went  out  of  business,  and  many  an 
industrial  establishment  closed  its  doors  rather  than  pay  the 
taxes.  Industry  and  commerce,  already  diseased,  were  almost 
completely  killed  by  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  (1492)  and  of 
the  Moors  (1609),  who  had  been  respectively  the  bankers  and 
the  manufacturers  of  Spain.  Spanish  gold  now  went  to  the 
English  and  Dutch  smugglers  who  supplied  the  peninsula  with 
manufactures,  and  German  bankers  became  the  financiers  of  the 
realm. 

The  crowning  misfortune  was  the  loss  of  the  Netherlands,  the 
richest  pro\dnces  of  the  whole  empire.  Some  of  the  wealthiest 
cities  of  Europe  were  situated  in  the  Netherlands.  Bruges  had 
once  been  a  great  city,  and  in  1566  was  still  able  tonSuy' nearly 
$2,000,000  worth  of  wool  to  feed  its  looms ;  but  as  a  commercial 
and  fmancial  center,  j  the  Flemish  city  of  Antwerp  had  taken 
first  place.  In  1566  it  was  said  that  300  ships  and  as  many 
wagons  arrived  daily  with  rich  cargoes  to  be  bought  and  sold 


58  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

by  the  thousand  commercial  houses  of  Antwerp.  Antwerp  was 
the  heart  through  which  the  money  of  Europe  flowed.  Through 
the  bankers  of  Antwerp  a  French  king  might  borrow  money  of  a 
Turkish  pasha.  Yet  Antwerp  was  only  the  greatest  among  the 
many  cities  of  the  Netherlands. 

Charles  V,  king  of  Spain  during  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  had  found  in  the  Netherlands  his  richest  source  of  in- 
come, and  had  wisely  done  all  in  his  power  to  preserve  their 
prosperity.  As  we  shall  see  in  Chapter  III,  the  governors  ap- 
pointed by  King  Philip  II  in  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth 
century  lost  the  love  of  the  people  by  the  harsh  measures  against 
the  Protestants,  and  ruined  commerce  and  industry  by  imposing 
taxes  of  5  and  lo  per  cent  on  every  sale  of  land  or  goods.  In 
1566  the  Netherlands  rose  in  revolt,  and  after  many  bloody 
battles,  the  northern  or  Dutch  provinces  succeeded  in  breaking 
away  from  Spanish  rule. 

Spain  had  not  only  lost  the  little  Dutch  provinces ;  Flanders 
was  ruined :  its  fields  lay  waste,  its  weavers  had  emigrated  to 
England,  its  commerce  to  Amsterdam.  Commercial  supremacy 
never  returned  to  Antwerp  after  the  ''Spanish  Fury"  of  1576. 
Moreover,  during  the  war  Dutch  sailors  had  captured  most  of 
the  former  possessions  of  Portugal,  and  English  sea-power, 
beginning  in  mere  piratical  attacks  on  Spanish  treasure-fleets, 
had  become  firmly  established.  The  finest  part  of  North 
America  was  claimed  by  the  English  and  French.  Of  her 
world  empire,  Spain  retained  only  Central  and  South  America 
(except  Brazil),  Mexico,  California,  Florida,  most  of  the  West 
Indies,  and  in  the  East  the  Philippine  Islands  and  part  of  Borneo. 

The  Dutch,  driven  to  sea  by  the  limited  resources  of  their 
narrow  strip  of  coastland,  had  begun  their  maritime  career 
Dutch  Sea  as  fishermen  "exchanging  tons  of  herring  for  tons  of 
Power  gold."     In  the  siHeentH  century  they  had  built  up 

a  considerable  carrying  trade,  bringing  cloth,  tar,  timber,  and 
grain  to  Spain  and  France,  and  distributing  to  the  Baltic  coun- 
tries the  wines  and  liquors  and  other  products  of  southwestern 
Europe,  in  addition  to  wares  from  the  Portuguese  East  Indies. 

The  Dutch  traders  had  purchased  their  Eastern  wares  largely 
from  Portuguese  merchants  in  the  port  of  Lisbon.  Two  cir- 
cumstances—  the  union  of  Spain  with  Portugal  in   1580  and 


FOUNDATIONS   OF    MODERN   EUROPE  59 

the  revolt  of  the  Netherlands  from  Spain  —  combined  to  give 
the  Dutch  their  great  opportunity.  In  1594  the  port  of  Lisbon 
was  closed  to  Dutch  merchants.  The  following  year  the  Dutch 
made  their  first  voyage  to  India,  and,  long  jealous  of  the  Portu- 
guese colonial  possessions,  they  began  systematically  to  make 
the  trade  with  the  Spice  Islands  their  own.  By  1602,  65  Dutch 
ships  had  been  to  India.  In  the  thirteen  years —  1602  to  1615 
—  they  captured  545  Portuguese  and  Spanish  ships,  seized 
ports  on  the  coasts  of  Africa  and  India,  and  estabhshed  them- 
selves in  the  Spice  Islands.  In  addition  to  most  of  the  old 
Portuguese  empire,  —  ports  in  Africa  and  India,  Malacca, 
Oceanica,  and  Brazil,^  —  the  Dutch  had  acquired  a  foothold  in 
North  America  by  the  discoveries  of  Henry  Hudson  in  1609 
and  by  settlement  in  1621.  Their  colonists  along  the  Hudson 
River  called  the  new  territory  New  Netherland  and  the  town 
on  Manhattan  island  New  Amsterdam,  but  when  Charles  II 
of  England  seized  the  land  in  1664,  he  renamed  it  New  York. 

Thus  the  Dutch  had  succeeded  to  the  colonial  empire  of  the 
Portuguese.  With  their  increased  power  they  were  able  en- 
tirely to  usurp  the  Baltic  trade  from  the  hands  of  the  Hanseatic 
(German)  merchants,  who  had  incurred  hea\y  losses  by  the 
injury  to  their  interests  in  Antwerp  during  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. Throughout  the  seventeenth  century  the  Dutch  almost 
monopolized  the  carrying-trade  from  Asia  and  between  south- 
western Europe  and  the  Baltic.  The  prosperity  of  the  Dutch 
was  the  envy  of  all  Europe. 

It  took  the  whole  sixteenth  century  for  the  English  and 
French  to  get  thoroughly  into  the  colonial  contest.  During 
that  period  the  activities  of  the  English  were  confined  „    .    . 

,  .  ,.  .ii  •  ri        Beginnings 

to  exploration  and  piracy,  with  the  exception  of  the  of  English 
ill-starred  attempts  of  Gilbert  and  Raleigh  to  col- 
onize Newfoundland  and  North  Carolina.     The  voy- 
ages of  John  and  Sebastian  Cabot  in  1497-1498  were  later  to     -^ 
be  the  basis  of  British  claims  to  North  America.     The  search 

^  Brazil  was  more  or  less  under  Dutch  control  from  1624  until  1654,  when, 
through  an  uprising  of  Portuguese  colonists,  the  country  was  fully  recovered  by 
Portugal.  Holland  recognized  the  Portuguese  ownership  of  Brazil  by  treaty  of 
1662,  and  thenceforth  the  Dutch  retained  in  South  America  only  a  portion  of 
Guiana  (Surinam). 


and  French 
Explorations 


6o  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

for  a  northwest  passage  drove  Frobisher   (15 76-1 5 78),  Davis 
\  I11585-1587),  Hudson  (1610-1611),  and  Baffin  (1616)  to  explore 
^  llhe  northern  extremity  of  North  America,  to  leave  the  record 
'of  their  exploits  in  names  of  bays,  islands,  and  straits,  and  to 
establish  England's  claim  to  northern  Canada ;  while  the  search 
for   a   northeast   passage   enticed   Willoughby   and    Chancellor 
(1553)  around  Lapland,  and  Jenkinson  (i 557-1 558)   to  the  ice- 
bound   port    of    Archangel    in  northern    Russia.     Elizabethan 
England  had  neither  silver  mines  nor  spice  islands,  but  the  de- 
ficiency was  never  felt  while  British  privateers  sailed   the  seas. 
Hawkins,  the  great  slaver,  Drake,  the  second  circumnavigator 
of  the  globe,  Davis,  and  Cavendish  were  but  four  of  the  bold 
captains  who  towed  home  many  a  stately  Spanish  galleon  laden 
with  silver  plate  and  with    gold.      As  for  spices,  the  English 
.East  India  Company,  chartered  in  1600,  was  soon  to  build  up 
1 1    an  empire  in  the  East  in  competition  with  the  Dutch  and  with 
H    the  French,  but  that  story  belongs  to  a  later  chapter. 

France  was  less  active.  The  rivalry  of  Francis  I  ^  with 
Charles  V  of  Spain  had  extended  even  to  the  New  World.  Ver- 
razano  (1524)  sailed  the  coast  from  Carolina  to  Labrador, 
and  Cartier  „Cii^4ri535)  pushed  up  the  Saint  Lawrence  to 
MontreaI7  looking  for  a  northwest  passage,  and  demonstrating 
that  France  had  no  respect  for  the  Spanish  claim  to  all  America. 
After  1535,  however,  nothing  of  permanence  was  done  until  the 
end  of  the  century,  and  the  founding  of  French  colonies  in  India 
and  along  the  Saint  Lawrence  and  Mississippi  rivers  belongs 
rather  to  the  history  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

One  of  the  most  amazing  spectacles  in  history  is  the  expansion 
of  Europe  since  the  sixteenth  century.  Not  resting  content 
Motives  with  discovering  the  rest  of  the  world,  the  European 
for     _  nations  with  sublime  confidence  pressed  on  to  divide 

the  new  continents  among  them,  to  conquer.  Chris- 
tianize, and  civilize  the  natives,  and  to  send  out  millions  of  new 
emigrants  to  establish  beyond  the  seas  a  New  England,  a  New 
France,  a  New  Spain,  and  a  New  Netherland.  The  Spaniards 
in  Spain  to-day  are  far  outnumbered  by  the  Spanish-speaking 
people  in  Argentina,  Chili,  Peru,  Central  America,  and  the 
Philippine  Islands. 

^  See  below,  pp.  77  ff. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  6i 

It  was  not  merely  greed  for  gold  and  thirst  for  glory  which 
inspired  the  colonizing  movement.  To  the  merchant's  eager 
search  for  precious  metals  and  costly  spices,  and  to  the 
adventurer's  fierce  delight  in  braving  unknown  dan- 
gers where  white  man  never  had  ventured,  the  Portuguese 
and  Spanish  explorers  added  the  inspiration  of  an  ennobling 
missionary  ideal.  In  the  conquest  of  the  New  World  priests 
and  chapels  were  as  important  as  soldiers  and  fortresses ;  and 
its  settlements  were  named  in  honor  of  Saint  Francis  (San 
Francisco),  Saint  Augustine  (St.  Augustine),  the  Holy  Saviour 
(San  Salvador),  the  Holy  Cross  (Santa  Cruz),  or  the  Holy 
Faith  (Santa  Fe).  Fearless  priests  penetrated  the  interior  of 
America,  preaching  and  baptizing  as  they  went.  Unfortunately 
some  of  the  Spanish  adventurers  who  came  to  make  fortunes 
in  the  mines  of  America,  and  a  great  number  of  the  non-Spanish 
foreigners  who  owned  mines  in  the  Spanish  colonies,  set  gain 
before  religion,  and  imposed  crushing  burdens  on  the  natives 
who  toiled  as  slaves  in  their  mines.  Cruelty  and  forced  labor 
decimated  the  natives,  but  in  the  course  of  time  this  abuse  was 
remedied,  thanks  largely  to  the  Spanish  bishop,  Bartolome  de 
las  Casas,  and  instead  of  forming  a  miserable  remnant  of  an 
almost  extinct  race,  as  they  do  in  the  United  States,  the  Indians 
freely  intermarried  with  the  Spaniards,  whom  they  always 
outnumbered.  As  a  result,  Latin  America  is  peopled  by  nations 
which  are  predominantly  Indian  in  blood, ^  Spanish  or  Portu- 
guese -  in  language,  and  Roman  CathoHc  in  religion. 

The  same  religious  zeal  which  had  actuated  Spanish  mis- 
sionary-explorers was  manifested  at  a  later  date  by  the  French 
Jesuit  Fathers  who  penetrated  North  America  in  order  to  preach 
the  Christian  faith  to  the  Indians.  Quite  different  were  the 
religious  motives  which  in  the  seventeenth  century  inspired 
Protestant  colonists  in  the  New  World.  They  came  not  as 
evangehsts,  but  as  religious  outcasts  fleeing  from  persecution, 
or  as  restless  souls  worsted  at  politics  or  unable  to  gain  a  Hv- 
ing  at  home.  This  meant  the  dispossession  and  ultimate  ex- 
tinction rather  than  the  conversion  of  the  Indians. 

******* 

^  Except  in  the  southern  part  of  South  America.  ^  In  Brazil. 


\ 


62  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

The  stirring  story  of  the  colonial  struggles  which  occupied  the 

seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  will  be  taken  up  in  another 

chapter;    at  this  point,  therefore,  we  turn  from  the 

of  the  expanding  nations  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard  to  note 

Hanseatic      ^]-|g  mournful  plight  of  the  older  commercial  powers 

League  j.     <-■  x 

—  the  German  and  Itahan  city-states.  As  for  the 
former,  the  Hanseatic  League,  despoiled  of  its  Baltic  commerce 
by  enterprising  Dutch  and  English  merchants,  its  cities  restless 
and  rebellious,  gradually  broke  up.  In  1601  an  Englishman 
metaphorically  observed:  "Most  of  their  [the  league's]  teeth 
have  fallen  out,  the  rest  sit  but  loosely  in  their  head,"  —  and 
in  fact  all  were  soon  lost  except  Liibeck,  Bremen,  and  Hamburg. 
Less  rapid,  but  no  less  striking,  was  the  decay  of  Venice  and 
the  other  Italian  cities.  The  first  cargoes  brought  by  the 
Decay  of  Portuguese  from  India  caused  the  price  of  pepper  ^ 
Venice  g^j^^^  spices  to  fall  to  a  degree  whicli  spelled  ruin  for 

the  Venetians.  The  Turks  continued  to  harry  Italian  traders 
in  the  Levant,  and  the  Turkish  sea-power  grew  to  menacing 
proportions,  until  in  1571  Venice  had  to  appeal  to  Spain  for 
help.  To  the  terror  of  the  Turk  was  added  the  torment  of  the 
Barbary  pirates,  who  from  the  northern  coast  of  Africa  frequently 
descended  upon  Italian  seaports.  The  commerce  of  Venice  was 
ruined.  The  brilhance  of  Venice  in  art  and  literature  lasted 
through  another  century  (the  seventeenth),  supported  on  the 
ruins  of  Venetian  opulence;  but  the  splendor  of  Venice  was 
extinguished  finally  in  the  turbulent  sea  of  political  intrigue 
into  which  the  rest  of  Italy  had  already  sunk. 

EFFECTS   OF  THE   COMMERCIAL   REVOLUTION 

In  a  way,  all  of  the  colonizing  movements,  which  we  have 
been  at  pains  to  trace,  might  be  regarded  as  the  first  and  great- 
est result  of  the  Commercial  Revolution  —  that  is,  if  by  the 
Commercial  Revolution  one  understands  simply  the  discovery  of 
new  trade-routes ;  but,  as  it  is  difficult  to  separate  explorations 
from  colonization,  we  have  used  the  term  "Commercial  Revolu- 
ition"  to  include  both.  By  the  Commercial  Revolution  we  mean 
that  expansive  movement  by  which  European  commerce  es- 
caped  from    the   narrow   confines   of   the   Mediterranean   and 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  63 

encompassed  the  whole  world.     We  shall  proceed  now  to  con- 
sider that  movement  in  its  secondary  aspects  or  effects. 

One  of  the  tirst  in  importance  of  these  effects  was  the  advent 
of  a  new  politico-economic  doctrine  —  mercantilism  —  the  re- 
sult of  the  transference  of  commercial  supremacy  from  Italian 
and  German  city-states  to  national  states. 

With  the  declining  Italian  and  German  commercial  cities, 
the  era  of  municipal  commerce  passed  away  forever.  In  the 
peoples  of  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  who  now  became  Nationalism 
masters  of  the  seas,  national  consciousness  already  in  Com- 
was  strongly  developed,  and  centralized  governments  ^^'^'^^ 
were  perfected ;  these  nations  carried  the  national  spirit  into 
commerce.  Portugal  and  Spain  owed  their  colonial  empires 
to  the  enterprise  of  their  royal  families ;  Holland  gained  a  trade 
route  as  an  incident  of  her  struggle  for  national  independence ; 
England  and  France,  which  were  to  become  the  great  com- 
mercial rivals  of  the  eighteenth  century,  were  the  two  strongest 
national  monarchies. 

The  new  nations  founded  their  power  not  on  the  fearlessness 
of  their  chevaliers,  but  on  the  extent  of  their  financial  resources. 
Wealth  was  needed  to  arm  and  to  pay  the  soldiers,   Mercan- 
wealth  to  build  warships,  wealth  to  bribe  diplomats.  ^^^^ 
And  since  this  wealth  must  come  from  the  people  by  taxes,  it 
was  essential  to  have  a  people  prosperous  enough  to  pay  taxes. 
The  wealth  of  the  nation  must  be  the  primary  consideration  of 
the  legislators.     In  endeavoring  to  cultivate  and  preserve  the 
wealth  of  their  subjects,  European  monarchs  proceeded  upon  the 
assumption  that  if  a  nation  exported  costly  manufactures  to 
its  own  colonies  and  imported  cheap  raw  materials  from  them,  the;'^' 
money  paid  into   the  home  country  for  manufactures  would 
more  than  counterbalance  the  money  paid  out  for  raw  materials, 
and  this  "favorable  balance  of  trade"  would  bring  gold  to  the 
nation.     This  economic  theory  and  the  system  based  upon  it 
are  called  mercantihsm.     In  order  to  establish  such  a  balance^A 
of  trade,   the  government  might  either  forbid  or  heavily  tax  jl 
the  importation  of  manufactures  from  abroad,  might  prohibit  ij  ^ 
the  export  of  raw  materials,  might  subsidize  the  export  of  manu- 
factures,  and  might  attempt  by  minute  regulations  to  foster 
industry  at  home  as  well  as  to  discourage  competition  in  the 


64  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

colonies.  Thus,  intending  to  retain  the  profits  of  commerce 
for  Englishmen,  Cromwell  and  later  rulers  required  that  certain 
goods  must  be  carried  on  English  ships. 

By  far  the  most  popular  method  of  developing  a  lucrative 
colonial  trade  — •  especially  towards  the  end  of  the  sixteenth 
Chartered  and  throughout  the  seventeenth  century  —  was  by 
Companies  ii-^eans  of'^hartered  commercial  companies.  England 
(in  1600),  Holland  (in  1602),  France  (in  1664),  Sweden,  Den- 
mark, Scotland,  and  Prussia  each  chartered  its  own  "East 
India  Company."  The  English  possessions  on  the  Atlantic 
coast  of  America  were  shared  by  the  London  and  Plymouth 
Companies  (1606).  English  companies  for  trade  with  Russia, 
Turkey,  Morocco,  Guiana,  Bermuda,  the  Canaries,  and  Hudson 
Bay  were  organized  and  reorganized  with  bewildering  activity. 
In  France  the  crop  of  commercial  companies  was  no  less 
abundant. 

To  each  of  these  companies  was  assigned  the  exclusive  right 
to  trade  with  and  to  govern  the  inhabitants  of   a  particular 
colony,   with  the  privilege  and  duty  of   defending  the  same. 
Sometimes  the  companies  were  required  to  pay  money  into  the 
royal  treasury,  or  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  enterprise  were  a 
difficult   one,  a  company   might   be   supported   by  royal   sub- 
sidies.    The  Dutch  West  India  Company  (162 1)  was  authorized 
\to  build  forts,  maintain  troops,  and  make  war  on  land  and  sea ; 
the  government  endowed  the  company  with  one  million  florins, 
sixteen  ships,  four  yachts,   and  exemption  from   all  tolls  and^ 
license  dues  on  its  vessels.     The  English  East  India  Company 
first  organized  in   1600,   conducted  the  conquest  and  govern! 
ment  of  India  for  more  than  two  centuries,  before  its  adminisU 
trative  power  was  taken  away  in  1858. 

The  great  commercial  companies  were  a  new  departure  in 
business  method.  In  the  middle  ages  business  had  been  carried 
Financial  on  mostly  by  individuals  or  by  partnerships,  the  part- 
Methods  j-^gj-g  being,  as  a  rule,  members  of  the  same  family. 
After  the  expansion  of  commerce,  trading  with  another  country 
necessitated  building  forts  and  equipping  fleets  for  protection 
against  savages,  pirates,  or  other  nations.  Since  this  could  not 
be  accomplished  with  the  limited  resources  of  a  few  individuals, 
it  was  necessary  to  form  large  companies  in  which  many  investors 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  65 

shared  expense  and  risk.  Some  had  been  created  for  European 
trade,  but  the  important  growth  of  such  companies  was  for 
distant  trade.  Their  lirst  form  was  the  ''regulated  ^^ic 
company."  ^ach  member  would  contribute  to  the  "Regulated 
jg^eneral  fund  for  such  expenses  as  buikhng  forts,  and  °°^P*"y 
certain  rules  would  be  made  for  the  governance  of  all.  Subject 
to  these  rules,  each  merchantytraded  as  he  pleased,  and  there 
was  no  [)()(>]ing  of  profits.  The  regulated  company,  the  first 
form  of  the  commercial  company,  was  encouraged  by  the  king. 
He  could  charter  such  a  company,  grant  it  a  monopoly  over  a 
certain  district,  and  trust  it  to  develop  the  trade  as  no  individual 
could,  and  there  was  no  evasion  of  taxes  as  by  independent 
merchants. 

After  a  decade  or  so,  many  of  the  regulated  companies  found 
that  their  members  often  pursued  individual  advantage  to  the 
detriment  of  the  company's  interests,  and  it  was  j^^  j^j^^. 
thought  that,  taken  altogether,  profits  would  be  stock 
greater  and  the  risk  less,  if  all  should  contribute  to  a  °™P^°y 
common  treasur_\-,  intrusting  to  the  most  able  members  the_ 
cijrection  of  the  business  for  the  benefit  of  all.  Then  each  would 
receive  a  dividend  or  part  of  the  profits  proportional  to  his  share 
in  the  general  treasury  or  "joint  stock."  The  idea  that  while  the 
company  as  a  whole  was  permanent  each  individual  could  buy' 
or  sell  "shares"  in  the  joint  stock,  helped  to  make  such  "joint- 
stock"  companies  very  popular  after  the  opening  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  The  English  East  India  Company,  organized 
as  a  regulated  company  in  1600,  was  reorganized  piecemeal  for 
half  a  century  until  it  acquired  the  form  of  a  joint-stock  enter- 
prise; most  of  the  other  chartered  colonial  companies  followed 
the  same  plan.  In  these  early  stock-companies  we  find  the 
germ  of  the  most  characteristic  of  present-day  business  institu- 
tions —  the  corporation.  In  the  seventeenth  century  this  form 
of  business  organization,  then  in  its  rudimentary  stages,  as  yet 
had  not  been  applied  to  industry,  nor  had  sad  experience  yet 
revealed  the  lengths  to  which  corrupt  corporation  directors 
might  go. 

The  development  of  the  joint-stock  company  was  attended 
by  increased  activity  in  banking.  In  the  early  middle  ages 
the  lencUng  of  money  for  interest  had  been  forbidden  by  the 


^' 


66  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

-V  Catholic  Church ;  in  this  as  in  other  branches  of  business  it 
was  immoral  to  receive  profit  without  giving  work.  The  Jews, 
however,  with  no  such  scruples,  had  found  money- 
lending  very  profitable,  even  though  royal  debtors 
occasionally  refused  to  pay.  As  business  developed  in  Italy, 
hpwever,  Christians  lost  their  repugnance  to  interest-taking,  and 
Italian  (Lombard)  and  later  French  and  German  money-lenders 
and  money-changers  became  famous,  j  Since  the  coins  minted  by 
feudal  lords  and  kings  were  hard  to  pass  except  in  limited  dis- 
tricts, and  since  the  danger  of  counterfeit  or  light-weight  coins 
was  far  greater  than  now,  the  "money-changers"  who  would 
buy  and  sell  the  coins  of  different  countries  did  a  thriving 
business  at  Antwerp  in  the  early  sixteenth  century.  Later, 
Amsterdam,  Tohdon7  Hamburg,  and  Frankfort  took  over 
the  business  of  Antwerp  and  developed  the  institutions  of 
finance  to  a  higher  degree.^  The  money-lenders  became 
bankers,  paying  interest  on  deposits  and  receiving  higher 
interest  on  loans.  Shares  of  the  stock  of  commercial  com- 
panies were  bought  and  sold  in  exchanges,  and  as  early  as 
1542  there  were  complaints  about  speculating  on  the  rise  and 
fall  of  stocks. 

Within  a  comparatively  short  time  the  medieval  merchants' 
gilds  had  given  way  to  great  stock-companies,  and  Jewish 
money-lenders  to  millionaire  bankers  and  banking  houses  with 
many  of  our  instruments  of  exchange,  such  as  the  bill  of  exchange. 
Such  was  the  revolution  in  business  that  attended,  and  that  was 
partly  caused,  partly  helped,  by  the  changes  in  foreign  trade, 
which  we  call  the  Commercial  Revolution. 

Not  only  was  foreign  trade  changed  from  the  south  and  east 
of  Europe  to  the  west,  from  the  city-states  to  nations,  from 
New  Com-  land-routcs  to  ocean-routes ;  but  the  vessels  which 
modities  sailed  the  Atlantic  were  larger,  stronger,  and  more 
numerous,  and  they  sailed  with  amazing  confidence  and  safety, 
as  compared  with  the  fragile  caravels  and  galleys  of  a  few  cen- 
turies before.     The  cargoes  they  carried  had  changed  too.     The 

^  The  gold  of  the  New  World  and  the  larger  scope  of  commercial  enterprises  had 
increased  the  scale  of  operations,  as  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the  fortunes  of  three 
great  banking  families:  1300  —  the  Peruzzi's,  $800,000;  1440 — the  Medici's, 
$7,500,000;   1546  —  the  Fuggers',  $40,000,000. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  67 

comparative  cheapness  of  water-transportation  had  made  it 
possible  profitably  to  carry  grain  and  meat,  as  well  as  costly 
luxuries  of  small  bulk  such  as  spices  and  silks.  Manufactures 
were  an  important  item.  Moreover,  new  commodities  came 
into  commerce,  such_as  tea  and  coffee.  The  Americas  sent  to  \ 
Europe  the  potato,  "Indian"  corn,  tobacco,  cocoa,  cane-sugar 
(hitherto  scarce),  molasses,  rice,  rum,  fish,  whale-oil  and  whale- 
bone, (lye-w(M)(ls  and  timber  and  furs;  Europe  sent  back  manu- 
facture's, luxuries,  and  slaves. 

Slaws  had  been  articles  of  commerce  since  time  immemorial; 
at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century  there  were  said  to  have  been 
3000  in  Venice;  and  the  Portuguese  had  enslaved 
some  Africans  before  1500.  But  the  need  for  cheap 
labor  in  the  mines  and  on  the  sugar  and  tobacco  plantations  of 
the  New  World  gave  the  slave-trade  a  new  and  tremendous 
impetus.  The  Spaniards  began  early  to  enslave  the  natives  of 
America,  although  the  practice  was  opposed  by  the  noble  en- 
deavors of  the  Dominican  friar  and  bishop,  Bartolome  de  las 
Casas.  But  the  native  population  was  not  sufficient,  —  or,  as 
in  the  English  colonies,  the  Indians  were  exterminated  rather 
than  enslaved,  —  and  in  the  sixteenth  century  it  was  deemed 
necessary  to  import  negroes  from  Africa.  The  trade  in  African 
negroes  was  fathered  by  the  English  captain  Hawkins,  and  7>{ 
fostered  alike  by^English  and  Dutch.  It  proved  highly  lucra- 
tive, and  it  was  long  before  the  trade  yielded  to  the  better  judg- 
ment of  civilized  nations,  and  still  longer  before  the  institution 
of  slavery  could  be  eradicated. 

The  expansion  of  trade  was  the  strongest  possible  stimulus 
to  agriculture  and  industry.  New  industries  —  such  as  the 
silk  and  cotton  manufacture  —  grew  up  outside  of  _„   , 

— — —•  —  , °  ,  ^  .  Effects  on 

the  antiquated  gild  system.     The  old  industries,  es-  industry 
pecially  the  English  woolen  incfustry,  grew  to  new  ^^i*|y^"' 
i^pottance^and  often  came  under  the  control  of  the 
newer  and  more  powerful  merchants  who  conducted  a  wholesale 
business  in  a  single  commodity,  such  as  cloth.     CapitaHsts  had  ^ 
their  agents  buy  wool,  dole  it  out  to  spinners  and  weavers  who\\  y' 
were  paid  so  much  for  a  given  amount  of  work,  and  then  sell ' ' 
the  finished  product.     This  was  called  the'|^dom^stic_jystemil/ 
because  the  work  was  done  at  home,  or  "capitaHstic,"  because 


68  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

raw  material  and  finished  product  were  owned  not  by  the  man 
who  worked  them,  but  by  a  "capitahst"  or  rich  merchant.  How 
these  changing  conditions  were  dealt  with  by  mercantilist  states- 
men, we  shall  see  in  later  chapters. 

The  effect  on  agriculture  had  been  less  direct  but  no  less  real. 
The  land  had  to  be  tilled  with  greater  care  to  produce  grain 
sufficient  to  support  populous  cities  and  to  ship  to  foreign  ports. 
Countries  were  now  more  inclined  to  specialize  —  France  in 
wine,  England  in  wool  —  and  so  certain  branches  of  production 
grew  more  important.  The  introduction  of  new  crops  produced 
no  more  remarkable  results  than  in  Ireland  where  the  potato, 
transplanted  from  America,  became  a  staple  in  the  Irish  diet : 
''Irish  potatoes"  in  common  parlance  attest  the  completeness  of 
domestication. 

In  the  preceding  pages  we  have  attempted  to  study  particular 
effects  of  the  Commercial  Revolution  (in  the  broad  sense  includ- 
ing the  expansion  of  commerce  as  well  as  the  change 
Significance  ^^  trade-routes),  such  as  the  decline  of  Venice  and  of 
of  Commer-  the'  Hanse,  the  formation  of  colonial  empires,  the 
t/on  ^^°  "  ^^^^  ^^  commercial  companies,  the  expansion  of  bank- 
ing, the  introduction  of  new  articles  of  commerce, 
and  the  development  of  agriculture  and  industry.  In  each 
particular  the  change  was  noticeable  and  important. 

But  the  Commercial  Revolution  possesses  a  more  general 
significance. 

(i)  It  was  the  Commercial  Revolution  that  started  Europe  on 
her  career  of  world  conquest.  The  petty,  quarrelsome  feudal 
"^  states  of  the  smallest  of  five  continents  have  become 

peanization  the  Powers  of  to-day,  dividing  up  Africa,  Asia,  and 
of  the  America,   founding  empires  greater  and  more  last- 

ing than  that  of  Alexander.  The  colonists  of  Europe 
imparted  their  language  to  South  America  and  made  of  North 
America  a  second  Europe  with  a  common  cultural  heritage. 
The  explorers,  missionaries,  and  merchants  of  Europe  have 
penetrated  all  lands,  bringing  in  their  train  European  manners, 
dress,  and  institutions.  They  are  still  at  work  Europeanizing 
the  world. 

(2)  The  expansion  of  commerce  meant  the  increase  of  wealth, 
knowledge,    and    comfort.     All    the    continents    heaped    their 


V 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN  EUROPE      69 

treasures  in  the  lap  of  Europe.     Knowledge  of  the  New  World, 

with  its  many  peoples,  products,  and  peculiarities, 

tended  to  dispel  the  silly  notions  of  medieval  igno-  ^j  weatfh* 

ranee ;   and  the  goods  of  every  land  were  brought  for  Knowledge, 

the  Comfort  of  the  European  —  American  timber  for  comfort 

his  house,  Persian  rugs  for  his  floors,  Indian  ebony 

for  his  table,  Irish  linen  to  cover  it,  Peruvian  silver  for  his  fork, 

Chinese  tea,  sweetened  with  sugar  from  Cuba. 

(3)  This  new  comfort,  knowledge,  and  wealth  went  not 
merely  to  nobles  and  prelates ;  it  was  noticeable  most  of  all  in 
a  new  class,  the  "bourgeoisie."  In  the  towns  of  The  Rise 
Europe  lived  bankers,  merchants,  and  shop-keepers,  of  the 
—  intelligent,  able,  and  wealthy  enough  to  live  Hke  ^°"''g^°'^'« 
kings  or  princes.  These  bourgeois  or  townspeople  {bourg  = 
town)  were  to  grow  in  intelligence,  in  wealth,  and  in  political 
influence ;  they  were  destined  to  precipitate  revolutions  in 
industry  and  politics,  thereby  establishing  their  individual  rule 
over  factories,  and  their  collective  rule  over  legislatures. 


ADDITIONAL   READING 

General.  A.  F.  Pollard,  Factors  in  Modern  History  (1907),  ch.  ii,  vi, 
X,  three  illuminating  essays;  E.  P.  Cheyney,  An  Introduction  to  the  Indus- 
trial and  Social  History  of  England  (1901),  ch.  ii-vi,  a  good  outline;  F.  W. 
Tickner,  A  Social  and  Industrial  History  of  England  (191 5),  an  interesting 
and  valuable  elementary  manual,  ch.  i-vii,  x-xii,  xvi,  xvii,  xix-xxi,  xxiv- 
xxvii;  W.  J.  Ashley,  The  Economic  Organization  of  England  (1914),  ch.  i- 
v;  G.  T.  Warner,  Landmarks  in  English  Industrial  History,  nth  ed.  (1912), 
ch.  vii-xiii ;  E.  B.  Traill  and  J.  S.  Mann  (editors),  Social  England  (1909), 
Vols.  II,  III;  H.  de  B.  Gibbins,  Industry  in  England,  6th  ed.  (1910),  com- 
pact general  survey  ;  William  Cunningham,  The  Growth  of  English  Industry 
and  Commerce  in  Modern  Times,  sth  ed.,  3  vols.  (1910-1912),  a  standard 
work;  H.  D.  Bax,  German  Society  at  the  Close  of  the  Middle  Ages  (1894), 
brief  but  clear,  especially  ch.  i,  v,  vii  on  towns  and  country-life  in  the 
Germanics.  Very  detailed  works:  Maxime  Kovalevsky,  Die  okonomische 
Entwicklung  Europas  bis  zum  Beginn  der  kapitalistischen  Wirtschaftsform, 
trans,  into  German  from  Russian,  7  vols.  (1901-1914),  especially  vols.  Ill, 
IV,  VI ;  Emile  Levasseur,  Histoire  des  classes  ouvrieres  et  de  Vindustrie  en 
France  avant  lySg,  Vol.  II  (1901),  Book  V;  Georges  d'Avenel,  Histoire 
economique  de  la  propriete,  dcs  salaires,  etc.,  1200-1800,  6  vols.  (1894-1912). 

Agriculture  in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  R.  E.  Prothero,  English  Farm- 
ing Past  and  Present  (1912),  ch.  iv ;    E.  C.  K.  Gonner,  Common  Land  and 


70  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Inclosure  (1912),  valuable  for  England;  R.  H.  Tawney,  The  Agrarian 
Problem  in  the  Sixteenth  Century  (1912) ;  E.  F.  Gay,  Essays  on  English 
Agrarian  History  in  the  Sixteenth  Century  (1913) ;  H.  T.  Stephenson, 
The  Elizabethan  People  (1910) ;  W.  Hasbach,  A  History  of  the  English 
Agricultural  Labourer,  trans,  by  Ruth  Kenyon  (1908),  an  excellent  work, 
particularly  Part  I  on  the  development  of  the  class  of  free  laborers  from 
that  of  the  medieval  serfs.  Valuable  for  feudal  survivals  in  France  is  the 
brief  Feudal  Regime  by  Charles  Seignobos,  trans,  by  Dow.  Useful  for 
social  conditions  in  Russia:  James  Mavor,  An  Economic  History  of  Russia, 
2  vols.  (1914),  Vol.  I,  Book  I,  ch.  iii.  See  also  Eva  M.  Tappan,  When 
Knights  were  Bold  (191 1)  for  a  very  entertaining  chapter  for  young  people, 
on  agriculture  in  the  sixteenth  century ;  Augustus  Jessopp,  The  Coming 
of  the  Friars  (1913),  ch.  ii,  for  a  sympathetic  treatment  of  "  Village  Life 
Six  Hundred  Years  Ago  " ;  and  W.  J.  Ashley,  Surveys,  Historical  and 
Economic,  for  a  series  of  scholarly  essays  dealing  with  recent  controversies 
in  regard  to  medieval  land-tenure. 

Towns  and  Commerce  about  1500.  Clive  Day,  History  of  Commerce 
(1907),  best  brief  account ;  W.  C.  Webster,  A  General  History  of  Commerce 
(1903),  another  excellent  outline ;  E.  P.  Cheyney,  European  Background  of 
American  History  (1904)  in  "  American  Nation  "  Series,  clear  account  of 
the  medieval  trade  routes,  pp.  3-40,  of  the  early  activities  of  chartered 
companies,  pp.  123-167,  and  of  the  connection  of  the  Protestant  Revolution 
with  colonialism,  pp.  168-239  ;  W.  S.  Lindsay,  History  of  Merchant  Shipping 
and  Ancient  Commerce,  4  vols.  (1874-1876),  very  detailed.  The  best  ac- 
count of  sixteenth-century  industry  is  in  Vol.  II  of  W.  J.  Ashley,  English 
Economic  History  and  Theory,  with  elaborate  critical  bibliographies.  For 
town-life  and  the  gilds:  Mrs.  J.  R.  Green,  Town  Life  in  England  in  the 
Fifteenth  Century,  2  vols.  (1894) ;  Charles  Gross,  The  Gild  Merchant,  2  vols. 
(1890) ;  Lujo  Brentano,  On  the  History  and  Development  of  Gilds  (1870) ; 
George  Unwin,  The  Gilds  and  Companies  of  London  (1908),  particularly 
the  interesting  chapter  on  "  The  Place  of  the  Gild  in  the  History  of  Western 
Europe."  A  brief  view  of  English  town-life  in  the  later  middle  ages: 
E.  Lipson,  An  Introduction  to  the  Economic  History  of  England,  Vol.  I 
(1915),  ch.  v-ix.  On  town-life  in  the  Netherlands:  Henri  Pirenne,  Belgian 
Democracy:  its  Early  History,  trans,  by  J.  V.  Saunders  (1915).  On  town- 
life  in  the  Germanics:  Helen  Zimmern,  The  Hansa  Towns  (1889)  in  "  Story 
of  the  Nations  "  Series  ;  Karl  von  Hegel,  Stddte  und  Gilden  der  germanischen 
Volker  im  Mittelalter,  2  vols.  (1891),  the  standard  treatise  in  German.  On 
French  gilds:  Martin  St.  Leon,  Histoire  des  corporations  des  metiers  (1897). 
See  also,  for  advanced  study  of  trade-routes,  Wilhelm  Heyd,  Geschichte  des 
Levantehandels  im  Mittelalter,  2  vols.  (1879),  with  a  French  trans.  (1885- 
1886),  and  Aloys  Schulte,  Geschichte  des  mittelallerlichenHandels  und  Verkehrs 
zwischcn  Westdeutschland  und  Italien,  2  vols.  (1900). 

General  Treatments  of  Exploration  and  Colonization.  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  Vol.  I  ([902),  ch.  i,  ii ;  A.  G.  Keller,  Colonization:  a  Study  of  the 
Founding  of  New  Societies  (1908),  a  textbook,  omitting  reference  to  English 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  71 

and  French  colonization ;  H.  C.  Morris,  History  of  Colonization,  2  vols. 
(190S),  a  useful  general  text;  M.  B.  Synge,  A  Book  of  Discovery:  the 
History  of  the  World's  Exploration,  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Finding 
of  the  South  Pole  (191 2) ;  Histoire  generate,  Vol.  IV,  ch.  xxii,  xxiii, 
and  Vol.  V,  ch.  xxii ;  S.  Ruge,  Geschichte  des  Zeitalters  der  Entdeckungen 
(1881),  in  the  ambitious  Oncken  Series;  Paul  Leroy-Beaulieu,  La  colonisa- 
tion chcz  Ics  pcuplcs  modcrncs,  6th  ed.,  2  vols.  (1908),  the  best  general  work 
in  French ;  Charles  de  Lannoy  and  Hermann  van  der  Linden,  Histoire  dc 
Vexpansion  coloniale  des  pcuplcs  curopeens,  an  important  undertaking  of 
two  Belgian  professors,  of  which  two  volumes  have  appeared  —  Vol.  I, 
Portugal  ct  Espagne  (1907),  and  Vol.  II,  Neerlande  et  Danemark,  if  et 
18^  Steele  (191 1);  Alfred  Zimmermann,  Die  europdischen  Kolonien,  the 
main  German  treatise,  in  5  vols.  (1896-1903),  dealing  with  Spain  and  Por- 
tugal (\'ol.  I),  Great  Britain  (Vols.  II,  III),  France  (Vol.  IV),  and  Holland 
(Vol.  \').  Much  illustrative  source-material  is  available  in  the  publications 
of  the  Hakluyt  Society,  Old  Series,  100  vols.  (1847-1898),  and  New  Scries, 
35  vols.  (1899-1914),  selections  having  been  separately  pubhshed  by  E.  J. 
Payne  (1S93-1900)  and  by  C.  R.  Beazley  (1907).  An  account  of  the 
medieval  travels  of  jNIarco  Polo  is  published  conveniently  in  the  "  Every- 
man "  Series,  and  the  best  edition  of  the  medieval  travel-tales  which  have 
passed  under  the  name  of  Sir  John  INIaundeville  is  that  of  The  Macmillan 
Company  (1900).  For  exploration  prior  to  Columbus  and  Da  Gama,  see 
C.  R.  Beazley,  The  Dawn  of  Modern  Geography,  3  vols,  (i 897-1906). 

With  special  reference  to  America:  J.  S.  Bassett,  A  Short  History  of 
the  United  States  (1914),  ch.  i,  ii,  a  good  outline;  Edward  Channing,  A 
History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  I  (1905),  an  excellent  and  more  detailed 
narrative;  Livingston  Farrand,  Basis  of  American  History  (1904),  Vol.  II 
of  the  "  American  Nation  "  Series,  especially  valuable  on  the  American 
aborigines;  E.  J.  Payne,  History  of  the  New  World  called  America,  2  vols. 
(1892-1899) ;  John  Fiske,  Colonization  of  the  New  World,  Vol.  XXI  of 
History  of  All  Nations,  ch.  i-vi ;  R.  G.  Watson,  Spanish  and  Portuguese 
South  America,  2  vols.  (1884) ;  Bernard  IMoses,  The  Establishment  of  Spanish 
Rule  in  America  (1898),  and,  by  the  same  author,  The  Spanish  Dependencies 
in  South  America,  2  vols.  (1914).  With  special  reference  to  Asiatic  India: 
Mountstuart  Elphinstone,  History  of  India:  the  Hindu  and  Mohametan 
Periods,  9th  ed.  (1905),  an  old  but  still  valuable  work  on  the  background 
of  Indian  history  ;  Sir  W.  W.  Hunter,  A  Brief  History  of  the  Indian  Peoples, 
rev.  ed.  (1903),  and,  by  the  same  author,  A  History  of  British  India  to  the 
opening  of  the  eighteenth  century,  2  vols.  (1899-1900),  especially  Vol.  I; 
Pringle  Kennedy,  A  History  of  the  Great  Moghuls,  2  vols.  (1905-1911). 
With  special  reference  to  African  exploration  and  colonization  in  the  six- 
teenth century:  Sir  Harry  Johnston,  History  of  the  Colonization  of  Africa 
by  Alien  Races  (1899),  a  very  useful  and  authoritative  manual;  Robert 
Brown,  The  Story  of  Africa,  4  vols.  (1894-1895),  a  detailed  study;  G.  M. 
Theal,  South  Africa  (1894),  a  clear  summary  in  the  "  Story  of  the  Nations  " 
Series;    J.  S.  Keltie,  The  Partition  of  Africa  (1895).     See  also  Sir  Harry 


72  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Johnston,  The  Negro  in  the  Neiv  World  (igio),  important  for  the  slave- 
trade  and  interesting,  though  in  tone  somewhat  anti-EngHsh  and  pro- 
Spanish ;  J.  K.  Ingram,  A  History  of  Slavery  and  Serfdom  (1895),  a  brief 
sketch  ;  and  W.  E.  Burghardt  Du  Bois,  The  Negro  (1915),  a  handy  volume 
in  the  "  Home  University  Library." 

Exploration  and  Colonization  Country  by  Country.  Portugal :  C.  R. 
Beazley,  Prince  Henry  the  Navigator  in  "  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series 
(1897) ;  J.  P.  Oliveira  Martins,  The  Golden  Age  of  Prince  Henry  the  Naviga- 
tor, trans,  with  notes  and  additions  by  J.  J.  Abraham  and  W.  E.  Reynolds 
(1914)  ;  K.  G.  Jayne,  Vasco  da  Gama  and  his  Successors,  1460-1580  (1910) ; 
H.  M.  Stephens,  Portugal  (iSgi),  a  brief  sketch  in  the  "  Story  of  the  Na- 
tions "  Series;  F.  C.  Danvers,  The  Portuguese  in  India,  2  vols.  (1894),  a 
thorough  and  scholarly  work;  H.  M.  Stephens,  Albuquerque  and  the  Por- 
tuguese Settlements  in  India  (1892),  in  "Rulers  of  India"  Scries;  Angel 
Marvaud,  Le  Portugal  et  ses  colonies  (191 2) ;  G.  M.  Theal,  History  and 
Ethnography  of  Africa  South  of  the  Zambesi,  Vol.  I,  The  Portuguese  in  South 
Africa  from  1505  to  lyoo  (1907),  a  standard  work  by  the  Keeper  of  the 
Archives  of  Cape  Colony.  Spain  :  John  Fiske,  Discovery  of  America,  2  vols. 
(1892),  most  delightful  narrative;  Wilhelm  Roscher,  The  Spanish  Colonial 
System,  a  brief  but  highly  suggestive  extract  from  an  old  German  work 
trans,  by  E.  G.  Bourne  (1904)  ;  E.  G.  Bourne,  Spain  in  America,  1450-1580 
(1904),  Vol.  Ill  of  "  American  Nation  "  Series,  excellent  in  content  and 
form;  W.  R.  Shepherd,  Latin  America  (1914)  in  "Home  University  Li- 
brary," pp.  9-68,  clear  and  suggestive ;  Sir  Arthur  Helps,  The  Spanish 
Conquest  in  America,  new  ed.,  4  vols.  (1900-1904).  A  scholarly  study  of 
Columbus's  career  is  J.  B.  Thacher,  Christopher  Columbus,  3  vols.  (1903- 
1904),  incorporating  many  of  the  sources;  Washington  Irving,  Life  and 
Voyages  of  Christopher  Columbus,  originally  published  in  1828-183 1,  but 
still  very  readable  and  generally  sound ;  Filson  Young,  Christopher  Colum- 
bus and  the  New  World  of  his  Discovery,  2  vols.  (1906),  a  popular  account, 
splendidly  illustrated ;  Henry  Harrisse,  Christople  Colomb,  son  origine,  sa 
vie,  ses  voyages,  2  vols.  (1884),  a  standard  work  by  an  authority  on  the 
age  of  exploration ;  Henri  Vignaud,  Histoire  critique  de  la  grande  entre- 
prise  de  Christophe  Colomb,  2  vols.  (191 1),  destructive  of  many  commonly 
accepted  ideas  regarding  Columbus;  F.  H.  H.  Guillemard,  The  Life  of 
Ferdinand  Magellan  (1890) ;  F.  A.  MacNutt,  Fernando  Cortes  and  the  Con- 
quest of  Mexico,  1485-1547  (1909),  in  the  "  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series, 
and,  by  the  same  author,  both  Letters  of  Cortes,  2  vols.  (1908),  and  Bartholo- 
mew de  las  Casas  (1909)  ;  Sir  Clements  Markham,  The  Incas  of  Peru  (1910)- 
On  the  transference  of  colonial  power  from  Spain  to  the  Dutch  and  English, 
see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  IV  (1906),  ch.  xxv,  by  H.  E.  Egerton. 
England:  H.  E.  Egerton,  A  Short  History  of  British  Colonial  Policy,  2d 
ed.  (1909),  a  bald  summary,  provided,  however,  with  good  bibliographies; 
W.  H.  Woodward,  A  Short  History  of  the  Expansion  of  the  British  Empire, 
1500-IQII,  3d  ed.  (1912),  a  useful  epitome;  C.  R.  Beazley,  John  and 
Sebastian  Cabot:  the  Discovery  of  North  America  (1898) ;  J.  A.  Williamson, 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  73 

Maritime  Enterprise,  148^-1558  (1913) ;  E.  J.  Paj'nc  (editor),  Voyages 
of  the  Elizabethan  Seamen  to  America,  2  vols.  (iSg^-igoo) ;  L.  G.  Tyler, 
England  in  America,  1580-1652  (1904),  Vol.  IV  of  "  American  Nation  " 
Series;  George  Edmundson,  Anglo-Dutch  Rivalry,  1600-16 jj  (191 1). 
France:  R.  G.  Thwaites,  France  in  America,  I4gy-iy6j  (1905),  Vol.  VII 
of  "  American  Nation  "  Series. 

Economic  Results  of  the  Commercial  Revolution.  William  Cunning- 
ham, An  Essay  on  Western  Civilization  in  its  Economic  Aspects,  Vol.  II, 
Mcdiceval  and  Modern  Times  (1910),  pp.  162-224,  and,  by  the  same  author, 
ch.  XV  of  Vol.  I  (1902)  of  the  Cambridge  Modern  History;  E.  P.  Chcyney, 
Social  Changes  in  England  in  the  Sixteenth  Century  (191 2) ;  George  Unwin, 
Industrial  Organization  in  the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries  (1904) ; 
G.  Cawston  and  A.  H.  Keane,  Early  Chartered  Companies  (1896) ;  W.  R. 
Scott,  The  Constitution  and  Finance  of  English,  Scottish,  and  Irish  Joint- 
Stock  Companies  to  1^20,  Vol.  I  (191 2) ;  C.  T.  Carr  (editor),  Select  Charters 
of  Trading  Companies  (1913) ;  Beckles  Willson,  The  Great  Company  (1899), 
an  account  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Company ;  Henry  Weber,  La  Compagnie 
franqaise  des  Indes,  1604-1675  (1904) ;  Rccucil  dcs  voyages  de  la  Compagnie 
des  Indes  orientates  des  Holhindois,  10  vols.  (1730),  the  monumental  source 
for  the  activities  of  the  chief  Dutch  trading-company. 


CHAPTER   III 

EUROPEAN    POLITICS    IN    THE    SIXTEENTH    CENTURY 
THE   EMPEROR   CHARLES   V 

As  we  look  back  upon  the  confused  sixteenth  century,  we 
are  struck  at  once  by  two  commanding  figures,  —  the  Emperor 
Charles  V  ^  and  his  son  Philip  II,  —  about  whom  we  may  group 
most  of  the  political  events  of  the  period.  The  father  occupies 
the  center  of  the  stage  during  the  first  half  of  the  century ;  the 
son,  during  the  second  half. 

At  Ghent  in  the  Netherlands,  Charles  was  born  in  1500  of 
illustrious  parentage.  His  father  was  Philip  of  Habsburg,  son 
Extensive  '^^  ^^^  Emperor  Maximilian  and  Mary,  duchess  of 
Dominions  Burgundy.  His  mother  was  the  Infanta  Joanna, 
°  ^^^^  daughter  and  heiress  of  Ferdinand  of  Aragon  and 
Naples  and  Isabella  of  Castile  and  the  Indies.  The  death  of  his 
father  and  the  incapacity  of  his  mother  —  she  had  become  insane 

—  left  Charles  at  the  tender  age  of  six  years  an  orphan  under  the 
guardianship  of  his  grandfathers  Maximilian  and  Ferdinand. 
The  death  of  the  latter  in  15 16  transferred  the  whole  Spanish 
inheritance  to  Charles,  and  three  years  later,  by  the  death  of 
the  former,  he  came  into  possession  of  the  hereditary  dominions 
of  the  Habsburgs.  Thus  under  a  youth  of  nineteen  years  were 
grouped  wider  lands  and  greater  populations  than  any  Christian 
sovereign  had  ever  ruled.  Vienna,  Amsterdam,  Antwerp,  Brus- 
sels, Milan,  Naples,  Madrid,  Cadiz,  —  even  the  City  of  Mexico, 

—  owed  him  allegiance.  His  titles  alone  would  fill  several 
pages. 

Maximilian  had  intended  not  only  that  all  these  lands  should 
pass  into  the  hands  of  the  Habsburg  family,  but  also  that  his 

^  Charles  I  of  Spain. 
74 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  75 

grandson  should  succeed  him  as  head  of  the  Holy  Roman  Em- 
pire. This  ambition,  however,  was  hard  of  fullillment,  because 
the  French  king,  Francis  I  (15 15-1547),  feared  the  encircling  of 
his  own  country  by  a  united  German-Spanish-Italian  state,  and 
set  himself  to  preserve  what  he  called  the  "Balance  of  Power" 
—  preventing  the  undue  growth  of  one  political  power  at  the 
expense  of  others.  It  was  only  by  means  of  appeal  to  national 
and  family  sentiment  and  the  most  wholesale  bribery  that 
Charles  managed  to  secure  a  majority  of  the  electors'  votes 
against  his  French  rival  ^  and  thereby  to  acquire  the  coveted 
imperial  title.  He  was  crowned  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  his  twenty- 
first  year. 

Never  have  greater  difficulties  confronted  a  sovereign  than 
those  which  Charles  V  was  obliged  to  face  throughout  his  reign ; 
never  did  monarch  lead  a  more  strenuous  life.  He  character 
was  the  central  figure  in  a  very  critical  period  of  his-  °^  Charles 
tory :  his  own  character  as  well  as  the  painstaking  education  he 
had  received  in  the  Netherlands  conferred  upon  him  a  lively 
appreciation  of  his  position  and  a  dogged  pertinacity  in  discharg- 
ing its  obligations.  Both  in  administering  his  extensive  do- 
minions and  in  dealing  with  foreign  foes,  Charles  was  a  zealous, 
hard-working,  and  calculating  prince,  and  the  lack  of  success 
which  attended  many  of  his  projects  was  due  not  to  want  of 
ability  in  the  ruler  but  to  the  multiplicity  of  interests  among  the 
ruled.  The  emperor  must  do  too  many  things  to  allow  of  his 
doing  any  one  thing  well. 

Suppose  we  turn  over  in  our  minds  some  of  the  chief  prob- 
lems of  Charles  V,  for  they  will  serve  to  explain  much  of  the 
political  history  of  the  sixteenth  century.  In  the  first  DjfBcuities 
place,  the  emperor  was  confronted  with  extraordinary  Confronting 
difficulties  in  governing  his  territories.  Each  one  of  "^^ 
the  seventeen  provinces  of  the  Netherlands  —  the  country  which 
he  always  considered  peculiarly  his  own  - —  was  a  distinct  politi- 
cal unit,  for  there  existed  only  the  rudiments  of  a  central  adminis- 
tration and  a  common  representative  system,  while  the  county 
of  Burgundy  had  a  separate  poHtical  organization.  The  crown 
of  Castile  brought  with  it  the  recently  conquered  kingdom  of 
Granada,  together  with  the  new  colonies  in  America  and  scat- 

^  Henry  VIII  of  England  was  also  a  candidate. 


76  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

tered  posts  in  northern  Africa.  The  crown  of  Aragon  comprised 
the  four  distinct  states  of  Aragon,  Valencia,  Catalonia,  and 
Navarre/  and,  in  addition,  the  kingdoms  of  Naples,  Sicily, 
and  Sardinia,  each  with  its  own  customs  and  government.  At 
least  eight  independent  cortes  or  parhaments  existed  in  this 
Spanish-Italian  group,  adding  greatly  to  the  intricacy  of  ad- 
ministration. Much  the  same  was  true  of  that  other  Habsburg 
group  of  states, — Austria,  Styria,  Carniola,  Carinthia,  the  Tyrol, 
etc.,  —  but  Charles  soon  freed  himself  from  immediate  responsi- 
bility for  their  government  by  intrusting  them  (1521)  to  his 
younger  brother,  Ferdinand,  who  by  his  own  marriage  and  elec- 
tions added  the  kingdoms  of  Bohemia-  and  Hungary  (1526) 
to  the  Habsburg  dominions.  The  Empire  afforded  additional 
problems :  it  made  serious  demands  upon  the  time,  money,  and 
energies  of  its  ruler ;  in  return,  it  gave  little  but  glamour.  In 
all  these  regions  Charles  had  to  do  with  financial,  judicial,  and 
ecclesiastical  matters.  He  had  to  reconcile  conflicting  interests 
and  appeal  for  popularity  to  many  varied  races.  More  than 
once  during  his  reign  he  even  had  to  repress  rebellion.  In 
Germany,  from  his  very  first  Diet  in  1521,  he  was  face  to  face 
with  rising  Protestantism  which  seemed  to  him  to  blaspheme 
his  altar  and  to  assail  his  throne. 

The  emperor's  overwhelming  administrative  difficulties  were 
complicated  at  every  turn  by  the  intricacies  of  foreign  politics. 
In  the  first  place,  Charles  was  obhged  to  wage  war  with  France 
throughout  the  greater  part  of  his  reign ;  he  had  inherited  a  long- 
standing quarrel  with  the  French  kings,  to  which  the  rivalry  of 
Francis  I  for  the  empire  gave  a  personal  aspect.  In  the  second 
place,  and  almost  as  formidable,  was  the  advance  of  the  Turks  up 
the  Danube  and  the  increase  of  Mohammedan  naval  power  in  the 
Mediterranean.  Against  Protestant  Germany  a  Catholic  mon- 
arch might  hope  to  rely  on  papal  assistance,  and  English  support 
might  conceivably  be  enlisted  against  France.  But  the  popes, 
who  usually  disliked  the  emperor's  Italian  policy,  were  not  of 
great  aid  to  him  elsewhere ;  and  the  English  sovereigns  had  do- 
mestic reasons  for  developing  hostility  to  Charles.  A  brief  sketch 
of  the  foreign  affairs  of  Charles  may  make  the  situation  clear. 

^  The  part  south  of  the  Pyrenees.     See  above,  p.  8. 

2  Including  the  Bohemian  crown  lands  of  Moravia  and  Silesia. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  77 

Six  years  older  than  Charles,  Francis  I  had  succeeded  to  the 
French  throne  in  1515,  irresi)onsible,  frivolous,  and  vain  of  mili- 
tary reputation.     The  general  political  situation  of 
the  time,  —  the  gradual  inclosure  of  the  French  mon-  of  p^i-ancl 
archy  by  a  string  of  Habsburg  territories,  —  to  say  and  the 
nothing  of  the  remarkable  contrast  between  the  char-  for^his"^ 
arcter  of  Francis  and  that  of  the  persevering  Charles,   Wars  with 
made  a  great  conflict  inevitable,  and  definite  pretexts  chafies'v"'^ 
were  not  lacking  for  an  early  outbreak  of  hostilities, 
(i)  Francis  revived  the  claims  of  the  French  crown  to  Naples, 
although  Louis  XII  had  renounced  them  in  1504.     (2)  Francis, 
bent  on  regaining  Milan,  which  his  predecessor  had  lost  in  151 2, 
invaded  the  duchy  and,  after  winning  the  brilliant  victory  of 
Marignano  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  occupied  the  city  of 
Milan.     Charles  subsequently  insisted,  however,  that  the  duchy 
was  a  fief  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  and  that  he  was  sworn  by 
oath  to  recover  it.     (3)  Francis  asserted  the  claims  of  a  kinsman 
to  the  little  kingdom  of  Navarre,  the  greater  part  of  which,  it  will 
be  remembered,  had  recently  ^  been  forcibly  annexed  to  Spain. 
(4)  Francis  desired  to  extend  his  sway  over  the  rich  French-speak- 
ing pro\dnces  of  the  Netherlands,  while  Charles  was  determined 
not  only  to  prevent  further  aggressions  but  to  recover  the  duchy 
of  Burgundy  of  which  his  grandmother  had  been  deprived  by 
Louis  XI.     (5)  The  outcome  of  the  contest  for   the  imperial 
crown  in  15 19  virtually  completed  the  breach  between  the  two 
rivals.     War  broke  out  in  1522,  and  with  few  interruptions  it 
was  destined  to  outlast  the  lives  of  both  Francis  and  Charles. 

Italy  was  the  main  theater  of  the  combat.     In  the  first  stage, 
the  imperial  forces,  with  the  aid  of  a  papal  army,  speedily  drove 
the  French  garrison  out  of  Milan.     The  Sforza  family 
was    duly    invested    with    the    duchy    as    a    fief    of  -^^^^  ^^ 
the  Empire,  and  the  pope  was  compensated  by  the  Charles  v 
addition  of  Parma  and  Piacenza  to  the  Patrimony  of  prancis  i 
Saint  Peter.     The  victorious  Imperialists  then  pressed 
across  the  Alps  and  besieged  Marseilles.     Francis,  who  had  been 
detained  by  domestic  troubles  in  France,^  now  succeeded  in 

^  In  1512.     See  above,  p.  8. 

-  These  troubles  related  to  the  disposition  of  the  important  landed  estates  of 
the  Bourbon  family.  The  duke  of  Bourbon,  who  was  constable  of  France,  felt 
himself  injured  by  the  king  and  accordingly  deserted  to  the  emperor. 


78  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

raising  the  siege  and  pursued  the  retreating  enemy  to  Milan. 
Instead  of  following  up  his  advantage  by  promptly  attacking  the 
main  army  of  the  Imperialists,  the  French  king  dispatched  a 
part  of  his  force  to  Naples,  and  with  the  other  turned  aside  to 
blockade  the  city  of  Pavia.  This  blunder  enabled  the  Imperial- 
ists to  reform  their  ranks  and  to  march  towards  Pavia  in  order 
to  join  the  besieged.  Here  on  24  February,  1525,  —  the  em- 
peror's twenty-fifth  birthday,  —  the  army  of  Charles  won 
an  overwhelming  victory.  Eight  thousand  French  soldiers 
fell  on  the  field  that  day,  and  Francis,  who  had  been  in  the 
thick  of  the  fight,  was  compelled  to  surrender.  "Nothing 
in  the  world  is  left  me  save  my  honor  and  my  life,"  wrote  the 
king  to  his  mother.  Everything  seemed  auspicious  for  the 
cause  of  Charles.  Francis,  after  a  brief  captivity  in  Spain,  was 
released  on  condition  that  he  would  surrender  all  claims  to 
Burgundy,  the  Netherlands,  and  Italy,  and  would  marry  the 
emperor's  sister. 

Francis  swore  upon  the  Gospels  and  upon  his  knightly  word 
that  he  would  fuhill  these  conditions,  but  in  his  own  and  con- 
temporary opinion  the  compulsion  exercised  upon  him  absolved 
him  from  his  oath.  No  sooner  was  he  back  in  France  than  he 
declared  the  treaty  null  and  void  and  proceeded  to  form  alliances 
with  all  the  Italian  powers  that  had  become  alarmed  by  the 
sudden  strengthening  of  the  emperor's  position  in  the  peninsula, 
—  the  pope,  Venice,  Florence,  and  even  the  Sforza  who  owed 
everything  to  Charles.  Upon  the  resumption  of  hostilities  the 
league  displayed  the  same  want  of  agreement  and  energy  which 
characterized  every  coalition  of  Italian  city-states ;  and  soon 
the  Imperialists  were  able  to  possess  themselves  of  much  of 
The  Sack  ^^^  country.  In  1527  occurred  a  famous  episode  — 
of  Rome,  the  sack  of  Rome.  It  was  not  displeasing  to  the  em- 
^^^'^  peror  that  the  pope  should  be  punished  for  giving  aid 

to  France,  although  Charles  cannot  be  held  altogether  respon- 
sible for  what  befell.  His  army  in  Italy,  composed  largely  of 
Spaniards  and  Germans,  being  short  of  food  and  money,  and 
without  orders,  mutinied  and  marched  upon  the  Eternal  City, 
which  was  soon  at  their  mercy.  About  four  thousand  people 
perished  in  the  capture.  The  pillage  lasted  nine  months,  and 
the  brigands  were  halted  only  by  a  frightful  pestilence  which 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  79 

decimated  their  numbers.  Convents  were  forced,  altars  stripped, 
tombs  profaned,  the  hbrary  of  the  Vatican  sacked,  and  works  of 
art  torn  down  as  monuments  of  idolatry.  Pope  Clement  VII 
(i 523-1 534),  a  nephew  of  the  other  Medici  pope,  Leo  X,  had 
taken  refuge  in  the  impregnable  castle  of  St.  Angelo  and  was 
now  obliged  to  make  peace  with  the  emperor. 

The  sack  of  Rome  aroused  bitter  feelings  throughout  Catholic 
Europe,  and  Henry  VIII  of  England,  at  that  time  still  loyal  to 
the  pope,  ostentatiously  sent  aid  to  Francis.     But  al-  pea^e  of 
though    the    emperor   made    little   headway   against  Cambrai, 
Francis,    the   French  king,   on   account  of  strategic  ^^^^ 
blunders  and  the  disunion  of  the  league,  was  unable  to  maintain 
a  sure  foothold  in  Italy.     The  peace  of  Cambrai  (1529)  provided 
that  Francis  should  abandon  Naples,  Milan,  and  the  Nether- 
lands, but  the  cession  of  Burgundy  was  no  longer  insisted  upon. 
Francis  proceeded  to  celebrate  his  marriage  with  the  emperor's 
sister. 

Eight  years  of  warfare  had  left  Charles  V  and  the  Habsburg 
family   unquestionable   masters   of   Italy.     Naples   was   under 
Charles's  direct  government.     For  Milan  he  received  „  ,  , 
the  homage  of  Sforza.     The  Medici  pope,  whose  family  predomi- 
he  had  restored  in  Florence,  was  now  his  ally.     Charles  ^^"'^^  ^°^ 

...      Italy 

visited  Italy  for  the  first  time  in  1529  to  view  his  terri- 
tories, and  at  Bologna  (1530)  received  from  the  pope's  hands  the 
ancient  iron  crown  of  Lombard  Italy  and  the  imperial  crown  of 
Rome.     It  was  the  last  papal  coronation  of  a  ruler  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire. 

The  peace  of  Cambrai  proved  but  a  truce,  and  war  between 
Charles  and  Francis  repeatedly  blazed  forth.  Francis  made 
strange  alliances  in  order  to  create  all  possible  trouble  for  the 
emperor,  —  Scotland,  Sweden,  Denmark,  the  Ottoman  Turks, 
even  the  rebelhous  Protestant  princes  within  the  empire.  There 
were  spasmodic  campaigns  between  1536  and  1538  and  between 
1542  and  1544,  and  after  the  death  of  Francis  and  the  abdication 
of  Charles,  the  former's  son,  Henry  II  (1547-15 59),  continued 
the  conflict,  newly  begun  in  1552,  until  the  conclusion  of  the 
treaty  of  Cateau-Cambresis  in  1559,  by  which  the  Habsburgs 
retained  their  hold  upon  Italy,  while  France,  by  the  occupation 
of  the  important  bishoprics  of  Metz,  Toul,  and  Verdun,  extended 


8o  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

her  northeastern  frontier,  at  the  expense  of  the  empire,  toward 
the  Rhine  River. ^ 

Indirectly,  the  long  wars  occasioned  by  the  personal  rivalry 
of  Charles  and  Francis  had  other  results  than  Habsburg  pre- 
dominance in  Italy  and  French  expansion  towards  the 
of  the  Rhine.     They  preserved  a  "balance  of  power"  and 

Wars  prevented  the  incorporation  of  the  French  monarchy 

between, 

Charles  V      into  an  obsolescent  empire.     They  rendered  easier  the 
and  j-jgg  Qf  |-]^g  Ottoman  power  in  eastern  Europe ;    and 

Francis  I 

French  alliance  with  the  Turks  gave  French  trade 
and  enterprise  a  decided  lead  in  the  Levant.  They  also  per- 
mitted the  comparatively  free  growth  of  Protestantism  in 
Germany. 

More  sinister  to  Charles  V  than  his  wars  with  the  French  was 
the  advance  of  the  Ottoman  Turks.  Under  their  greatest  sultan, 
jijg  Suleiman  II,  the  Magnificent  (i 520-1 566),  a  contem- 

Turkish         poraiy  of  Charles,  the  Turks  were  rapidly  extending 

their  sway.  The  Black  Sea  was  practically  a  Turkish 
lake ;  and  the  whole  Euphrates  valley,  with  Bagdad,  had  fallen 
into  the  sultan's  power,  now  established  on  the  Persian  Gulf 
and  in  control  of  all  of  the  ancient  trade-routes  to  the  East. 
The  northern  coasts  of  Africa  from  Egypt  to  Algeria  acknowl- 
edged the  supremacy  of  Suleiman,  whose  sea  power  in  the  Medi- 
terranean had  become  a  factor  to  be  reckoned  with  in  European 
politics,  threatening  not  only  the  islands  but  the  great  Christian 
countries  of  Italy  and  Spain.  The  Venetians  were  driven  from 
the  Morea  and  from  the  ^F^gean  Islands ;  only  Cyprus,  Crete,  and 
Malta  survived  in  the  Mediterranean  as  outposts  of  Christendom. 
Suleiman  devoted  many  years  to  the  extension  of  his  power 
in  Europe,  sometimes  in  alliance  with  the  French  king,  some- 
Suieiman  times  upon  his  own  initiative,  —  and  with  almost  un- 
the  Mag-  broken  success.  In  1521  he  declared  war  against  the 
^  "'^^  king  of  Hungary  on  the  pretext  that  he  had  received  no 
Hungarian  congratulations  on  his  accession  to  the  throne.  He 
besieged  and  captured  Belgrade,  and  in  1526  on  the  field  of 
Mohacs  his  forces  met  and  overwhelmed  the  Hungarians,  whose 

^  It  was  during  this  war  that  in  1558  the  I'^rcnch  captured  Calais  from  the  Eng- 
lish, and  thus  put  an  end  to  Englisii  territorial  holdings  on  the  Continent.  The 
English  Queen  Mary  was  the  wife  of  Philip  II  of  Spain. 


FOUNDATIOXS   OF    MODERN   EUROPE  8i 

king  was  killed  with  the  flower  of  the  Hungarian  chivalry.  The 
battle  of  ]\Iohacs  marked  the  extinction  of  an  indci)endcnt  and 
united  Hungarian  state ;  Ferdinand  of  Habsburg,  brother  of 
Charles  V,  claimed  the  kingdom ;  Suleiman  was  in  actual  pos- 
session of  fully  a  third  of  it.  The  sultan's  army  carried  the  war 
into  Austria  and  in  1529  bombarded  and  invested  Vienna,  but 
so  valiant  was  the  resistance  offered  that  after  three  weeks  the 
siege  was  abandoned.  Twelve  years  later  the  greater  part  of 
Hungary,  including  the  city  of  Budapest,  became  a  Turkish 
province,  and  in  many  places  churches  were  turned  into  mosques. 
In  1547  Charles  V  and  Ferdinand  were  compelled  to  recognize 
the  Turkish  conquests  in  Hungary,  and  the  latter  agreed  to  pay 
the  sultan  an  annual  tribute  of  30,000  ducats.  Suleiman  not 
only  thwarted  every  attempt  of  his  rivals  to  recover  their  terri- 
tories, but  remained  throughout  his  life  a  constant  menace  to 
the  security  of  the  hereditary  dominions  of  the  Habsburgs. 

At  the  very  time  when  Charles  V  was  encountering  these 
grave  troubles  in  administering  his  scattered  hereditary  posses- 
sions and  in  waging  war  now  with  the  French  and 
now  with  the  Mohammedans,  he  hkewise  was  saddled  and'the 
with  problems  pecuHar  to  the  government  of  his  em-  Holy 
pire.     Had  he  been  able  to  devote  all  his  talent  and  Em™ke 
energy  to  the  domestic  affairs  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  he  might  have  contributed  potently  to  the  estabhsh- 
ment  of  a  compact  German  state.     It  should  be  borne  in  mind 
that  when  Charles  V  was  elected  emperor  in  15 19  the  Holy 
Roman   Empire  was  virtually  restricted   to   German-speaking 
peoples,  and  that  the  national  unifications  of  England,  France, 
and  Spain,  already  far  advanced,  pointed  the  path  to  a  similar 
poHtical  evolution  for  Germany.     Why  should  not  a  modern 
German  national  state  have-  been  created  coextensive  _,     ..  ...^ 

^  Possibility 

With  the  medieval  empire,  a  state  which  would  have  of  Trans- 
included  not  only  the  twentieth-century  German  Em-  forming  the 

•^  ■'  1  •   1  _     Empire  into 

pire,  but  Austria,  Holland,  and  Belgium,  and  which",  a  National 
stretching  from  the  Baltic  to  the  Adriatic  and  from  ^^^^^\ 

°  .      Monarchy 

the  Enghsh  Channel  to  the  Vistula,  would  have  domi- 
nated the  continent  of  Europe  throughout  the  whole  modern  era  ? 
There  were  certainly  grave  difficulties  in  the  way,  but  grave 
difiiculties  had  also  been  encountered  in  consoHdating  France  or 


82  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

Spain,  and  the  difference  was  rather  of  degree  than  of  kind. 
In  every  other  case  a  strong  monarch  had  overcome  feudal 
princes  and  ambitious  nobles,  had  deprived  cities  of  many 
of  their  liberties,  had  trampled  upon,  or  tampered  with,  the 
privileges  of  representative  assembhes,  and  had  enforced  in- 
ternal order  and  security.  In  every  such  case  the  monarch 
had  commanded  the  support  of  important  popular  elements 
and  had  directed  his  major  efforts  to  the  realization  of  national 
aims. 

National  patriotism  was  not  altogether  lacking  among  Ger- 
mans of  the  sixteenth  century.  They  were  conscious  of  a  com- 
mon language  which  was  already  becoming  a  vehicle  of  literary 
expression.  They  were  conscious  of  a  common  tradition  and  of 
a  common  nationality.  They  recognized,  in  many  cases,  the 
absurdly  antiquated  character  of  their  pohtical  institutions  and 
ardently  longed  for  reforms.  In  fact,  the  trouble  with  the  Ger- 
mans was  not  so  much  the  lack  of  thought  about  political  reform 
as  the  actual  conflicts  between  various  groups  concerning  the 
method  and  goal  of  reform.  Germans  despised  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  much  as  Frenchmen  abhorred  the  memory  of  feudal 
society;  but  Germans  were  not  as  unanimous  as  Frenchmen  in 
advocating  the  establishment  of  a  strong  national  monarchy. 
In  Germany  were  princes,  free  cities,  and  knights,  —  all  national- 
istic after  a  fashion,  but  all  quarreling  with  each  other  and  with 
their  nominal  sovereign. 

The  emperors  themselves  were  the  only  sincere  and  consistent 
champions  of  centralized  monarchical  power,  but  the  emperors 

were  probably  less  patriotic  than  any  one  else  in  the 
Charles  V  Holy  Roman  Empire.  Charles  V  would  never  aban- 
st^rengthen-  ^^^  ^^^  pretensions  to  world  power  in  order  to  become 
ing  Mo-  a  strong  monarch  over  a  single  nation.  Early  in  his 
Powe/  reign  he  declared  that  "no  monarchy  was  comparable 

though  not  to  the  Roman  Empire.  This  the  whole  world  had  once 
National  obeyed,  and  Christ  Himself  had  paid  it  honor  and 
Basis  obedience.     Unfortunately  it  was  now  only  a  shadow 

of  what  it  had  been,  but  he  hoped,  with  the  help  of 
those  powerful  countries  and  alhances  which  God  had  granted 
him,  to  raise  it  to  its  ancient  glory."  Charles  V  labored  for  an 
increase  of  personal  power  not  only  in  Germany  but  also  in  the 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  83 

Netherlands,  in  Spain,  and  in  Italy ;  and  with  the  vast  imperial 
ambition  of  Charles  the  ideal  of  creating  a  national  monarchy 
on  a  strictly  German  basis  was  in  sharp  conflict.  Charles  V 
could  not,  certainly  would  not,  pose  simply  as  a  German  king  — 
a  national  leader. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  powerful  German  princes,  in 
defying  the  emperor's  authority  and  in  promoting  disruptive 
tendencies  in  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  were  enabled  to 
lay  the  blame  at  the  feet  of  their  unpatriotic  sovereign  among  the 
and  thereby  arouse  in  their  behalf  a  good  deal  of  Ger-  German 
man  national  sentiment.     In  choosing  Charles  V  to 
be  their  emperor,  the  princely  electors  in  15 19  had  demanded 
that  German  or  Latin  should  be  the  official  language  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire,  that  imperial  offices  should  be  open  only  to 
Germans,  that  the  various  princes  should  not  be  subject  to  any 
foreign  poUtical  jurisdiction,  that  no  foreign  troops  should  serve 
in  imperial  wars  without  the  approval  of  the  Diet,  and  that 
Charles  should  confirm  the  sovereign  rights  of  all  the  princes 
and  appoint  from  their  number  a  Council  of  Regency  {Reichs- 
regiment)  to  share  in  his  government. 

In  accordance  with  an  agreement  reached  by  a  Diet  held  at 
Worms  in  152 1,  the  Council  of  Regency  was  created.     Most  of 
its  twenty-three  members  w^ere  named  by,  and  repre- 
sented the  interests  of,  the  German  princes.     Here  council 
might  be  the  starting-point  toward  a  closer  pohtical  of  Regency, 
union  of  the  German-speaking  people,  if  only  a  certain 
amount  of  financial  independence  could  be  secured  to  the  Council. 
The  proposal  on  this  score  was  a  most  promising  one ;  it  was  to 
support  the  new  imperial  administration,  not,  as  formerly,  by 
levying  more  or  less  voluntary  contributions  on  the  various 
states,  but  by  estabhshing  a  kind  of  customs-union  (Zollverein) 
and  imposing  on  foreign  importations  a  tarift"  for  revenue.     This 
time,  however,  the  German  burghers  raised  angry  protests ;   the 
merchants  and  traders  of  the  Hanseatic  towns  insisted  j^g  Failure 
that  the  proposed  financial  burden  would  fall  on  them  to  Unify 
and  destroy  their  business;    and  their  protests  were     ^""^^^^ 
potent  enough  to  bring  to  nought  the  princes'  plan.     Thus  the 
government  was  forced  again  to  resort  to  the  levy  of  special 
financial  contributions,  —  an  expedient  which  usually  put  the 


84  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

emperor  and  the  Council  of  Regency  at  the  mercy  of  the  most 
selfish  and  least  patriotic  of  the  German  princes. 

More  truly  patriotic  as  a  class  than  German  princes  or  Ger- 
man burghers  were  the  German  knights  —  those  gentlemen  of 
the  hill-top  and  of  the  road,  who,  usually  poor  in 

Nationalism  r  ^     • 

among  the  pocket  though  stout  oi  heart,  looked  down  from  their 
German  high-perched  castles  with  badly  disguised  contempt 
upon  the  vulgar  tradesmen  of  the  town  or  beheld  with 
anger  and  jealousy  the  encroachments  of  neighboring  princes,  lay 
and  ecclesiastical,  more  wealthy  and  powerful  than  themselves. 
Especially  against  the  princes  the  knights  contended,  sometimes 
under  the  forms  of  law,  more  often  by  force  and  violence  and 
all  the  barbarous  accompaniments  of  private  warfare  and  per- 
sonal feud.  Some  of  the  knights  were  well  educated  and  some 
had  literary  and  scholarly  abilities  ;  hardly  any  one  of  them  was 
a  friend  of  pubHc  order.  Yet  practically  all  the  knights  were 
intensely  proud  of  their  German  nationality.  It  was  the  knights, 
who,  under  the  leadership  of  such  fiery  patriots  as  Ulrich  von 
Hutten  and  Franz  von  Sickingen,  had  forcefully  contributed  in 
1 5 19  to  the  imperial  election  of  Charles  V,  a  German  Habsburg, 
in  preference  to  non-German  candidates  such  as  Francis  I  of 
France  or  Henry  VIII  of  England.  For  a  brief  period  Charles  V 
leaned  heavily  upon  the  German  knights  for  support  in  his 
struggle  with  princes  and  burghers ;  and  at  one  time  it  looked 
as  if  the  knights  in  union  with  the  emperor  would  succeed  in 
curbing  the  power  of  the  princes  and  in  laying  the  foundations  of 
a  strongly  centralized  national  German  monarchy. 

But  at  the  critical  moment  Protestantism  arose  in  Germany, 
marking  a  cleavage  between  the  knightly  leaders  and  the  em- 
peror. To  knights  like  Ulrich  von  Hutten  and  Franz 
Lutheran-  ^^^  Sickingen  the  final  break  in  1520  between  Martin 
ism  Favored  Luther  and  the  pope  seemed  to  assure  a  separation  of 
Knights  Germany  from  Italy  and  the  erection  of  a  peculiar 
and  Op-  form  of  German  Christianity  about  which  a  truly  na- 
ChMiesV  tional  state  could  be  buildcd.  As  a  class  the  knights  ap- 
plauded Luther  and  rejoiced  at  the  rapid  spread  of  his 
teachings  throughout  Germany.  On  the  other  hand,  Charles  V 
remained  a  Roman  Catholic.  Not  only  was  he  loyally  attached 
to  the  rehgion  of  his  fathers  through  personal  training  and  belief, 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  85 

but  he  felt  that  the  maintenance  of  what  poUtical  authority  he 
possessed  was  dependent  largely  on  the  maintenance  of  the 
unix'ersal  authority  of  the  ancient  Church,  and  practically  he 
needed  papal  assistance  for  his  many  foreign  projects.  The 
same  reasons  that  led  many  German  princes  to  accept  the 
Lutheran  doctrines  as  a  means  of  lessening  imperial  control 
caused  Charles  V  to  reject  them.  At  the  same  Diet  at  Worms 
(1521),  at  which  the  Council  of  Regency  had  been  created, 
Charles  V  prevailed  upon  the  Germans  present  to  condemn  and 
outlaw  Luther ;  and  this  action  alienated  the  knights  from  the 
emperor. 

Franz  von  Sickingen,  a  Rhenish  knight  and  the  ablest  of  his 
class,  speedily  took  advantage  of  the  emperor's  absence  from 
Germany  in  1522  to  precipitate  a  Knights'  War.     In 
supreme  command  of  a  motley  army  of  fellow-knights,  Knights' 
Franz  made  an  energetic  attack  upon  the  rich  landed  ^"'  ^5^^" 
estates  of  the  CathoHc  prince-bishop  of  Trier.     At  this 
point,  the  German  princes,  lay  as  well  as  ecclesiastical,  forgetting 
their  rehgious  predilections  and  mindful  only  of  their  common 
hatred  of  the  knights,  rushed  to  the  defense  of  the  bishop  of 
Trier  and  drove  off  Sickingen,  who,  in  April,  1523,  died  fight- 
ing before  his  own  castle  of  Ebernburg.     Ulrich  von  Hutten  fled 
to  S\vitzerland  and  perished  miserably  shortly  afterwards.     The 
knights'   cause  collapsed,   and  princes  and  burghers  remained 
triumphant.^     It  was  the  end  of  serious  efforts  in  the  sixteenth 
century  to  create  a  national  German  state. 

The  Council  of  Regency  lasted  until  1531,  though  its  inability 
to  preserve  domestic  peace  discredited  it,  and  in  its  later  years 
it  enjoyed  Httle  authority.     Left  to  themselves,  many  Failure  of 
of    the    princes    espoused    Protestantism.      In    vain  German 
Charles  V  combated    the  new   rehgious  movement.  in^thT    ^™ 
In  vain  he  proscribed  it  in  several  Diets  after  that  Sixteenth 
of  W^orms.     In  vain  he  assailed  its  upholders  in  sev-     ^^^^^^ 
eral  mihtary  campaigns,  such  as  those  against  the  Schmalkaldic 
League,  which  will  be  treated  more  fully  in  another  connection. 
But  the  long  absences  of   Charles  V  from   Germany  and  his 
absorption  in  a  multitude  of  cares  and  worries,  to  say  nothing 

'  The  Knights'  War  was  soon  followed  by  the  Peasants'  Revolt,  a  social  rather 
than  a  political  movement.     For  an  account  of  the  Peasants'  Revolt  see  pp.  133  ff. 


86  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

of  the  spasmodic  aid  which  Francis,  the  CathoHc  king  of  France, 
gave  to  the  Protestants  in  Germany,  contributed  indirectly  to 
the  spread  of  Lutheranism.  In  the  last  year  of  Charles's  rule 
(1555)  the  profession  of  the  Lutheran  faith  on  the  part  of  German 
princes  was  placed  by  the  peace  of  Augsburg  ^  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing with  that  of  the  CathoHc  rehgion.  Protestantism  among  the 
German  princes  proved  a  disintegrating,  rather  than  a  unify- 
ing, factor  of  national  hfe.  The  rise  of  Protestantism  was  the 
last  straw  which  broke  German  nationalism. 

With  England  the  relations  of  Charles  V  were  interesting  but 
not  so  important  as  those  already  noted  with  the  Germans,  the 
Charles  V  Turks,  and  the  French.  At  first  in  practical  alUance 
and  Eng-  with  the  impetuous  self-willed  Henry  VIII  ( 1 509-1 547) , 
^"  whose  wife  —  Catherine   of  Aragon  —  was   the  em- 

peror's aunt,  Charles  subsequently  broke  off  friendly  relations 
when  the  EngHsh  sovereign  asked  the  pope  to  declare  his  mar- 
riage null  and  void.  Charles  prevailed  upon  the  pope  to  deny 
Henry's  request,  and  the  schism  wliich  Henry  then  created 
between  the  Catholic  Church  in  England  and  the  Roman  See 
increased  the  emperor's  bitterness.  Towards  the  close  of  Henry's 
reign  relations  improved  again,  but  it  was  not  until  the  acces- 
sion of  Charles's  cousin,  Mary  (i 553-1 558),  to  the  English 
throne  that  really  cordial  friendship  was  restored.  To  this 
Queen  Mary,  Charles  V  married  his  son  and  successor  Philip. 

At  length  exhausted  by  his  manifold  labors,  Charles  V  re- 
solved to  divide  his  dominions  between  his  brother  Ferdinand 
Abdication  and  his  SOU  Phihp  and  to  retire  from  government.  In 
of  Charles  V  the  Hall  of  the  Golden  Fleece  at  Brussels  on  25  Octo- 
ber, 1555,  he  formally  abdicated  the  sovereignty  of  his  beloved 
Netherlands.  Turning  to  the  representatives,  he  said  :  "  Gentle- 
men, you  must  not  be  astonished  if,  old  and  feeble  as  I  am  in  all 
my  members,  and  also  from  the  love  I  bear  you,  I  shed  some 
tears."  At  least  in  the  Netherlands  the  love  was  reciprocal.  In 
1556  he  resigned  the  Spanish  and  Italian  crowns,^  and  spent  his 
last  years  in  preparation  for  a  future  world.  He  died  in  1558. 
Personally,  Charles  V  had  a  prominent  lower  jaw  and  a  thin, 

^  See  below,  p.  136. 

^  He  made  over  to  his  brother  all  his  imperial  authority,  though  he  nominally 
retained  the  crown  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  until  1558. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN    EUROPE  87 

pale  face,  relieved  by  a  wide  forehead  and  bright,  flashing  eyes. 
He  was  well  formed  and  dignified  in  appearance.  In  character 
he  was  slow  and  at  times  both  irresolute  and  obstinate,  but  he 
had  a  high  sense  of  duty,  honest  intentions,  good  soldierly  quali- 
ties, and  a  large  amount  of  cold  common  sense.  Though  not 
highly  educated,  he  was  well  read  and  genuinely  appreciative  of 
music  and  painting. 

PHILIP   II   AND   THE .  PREDOMINANCE   OF   SPAIN 

For  a  century  and  a  half  after  the  retirement  of  Charles  V  in 
1556,  we  hear  of  two  branches  of  the  Habsburg  family  —  the 
Spanish  Habsburgs  and  the  Austrian  Habsburgs,  de-  . 

scended  respectively  from  PhiHp  II  and  Ferdinand,  the  Habs- 
By  the  terms  of  the  division,  Ferdinand,  the  brother  ^"^s  in- 

/  „i       ,  .11  r        M  •  •       nentance 

of  Charles,  received  the  compact  family  possessions  in 

the  East  —  Austria  and  its  dependencies,  Bohemia,  that  portion 

of  Hungary  not  occupied  by  the  Turks,  and  the  title  of  Holy 

Roman  Emperor,  —  while  the  remainder  went  to  Charles's  son, 

Phihp  II,  —  Spain,  the  Netherlands,  Franche  Comte  (the  eastern 

part  of  Burgundy),  the  Two  Sicihes,  Milan,  and  the  American 

colonies. 

Over  the  history  of  Ferdinand  and  his  immediate  successors, 
we  need  not  tarry,  because,  aside  from  efforts  to  preserve  reh- 
gious  peace  and  the  family's  political  predominance  within  the 
empire  and  to  recover  Hungary  from  the  Turks,  it  is  hardly 
essential.  But  in  western  Europe  Phihp  II  for  a  variety  of 
reasons  became  a  figure  of  w^orld-wide  importance :  we  must 
examine  his  career. 

Few  characters  in  history  have  ehcited  more  widely  contra- 
dictory estimates  than  Philip  II.  Represented  by  many  Prot- 
estant writers  as  a  villain,  despot,  and  bigot,  he  has  character 
been  extolled  by  patriotic  Spaniards  as  Phihp  the  and  Policies 
Great,  champion  of  religion  and  right.  These  con-  °  ^ 
flicting  opinions  are  derived  from  different  views  which  may  be 
taken  of  the  value  and  inherent  worth  of  Phihp 's  pohcies  and 
methods,  but  what  those  policies  and  methods  were  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  In  the  first  place,  Phihp  II  prized  Spain  as  his  native 
country  and  his  main  possession  —  in  marked  contrast  to  his 


88  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

father,  for  he  himself  had  been  born  in  Spain  and  had  resided 
there  during  almost  all  of  his  life  —  and  he  was  determined 
to  make  Spain  the  greatest  country  in  the  world.  In  the  second 
place,  Philip  II  was  sincerely  and  piously  attached  to  Catholi- 
cism ;  he  abhorred  Protestantism  as  a  blasphemous  rending  of  the 
seamless  garment  of  the  Church ;  and  he  set  his  heart  upon  the 
universal  triumph  of  his  faith.  If,  by  any  chance,  a  question 
should  arise  between  the  advantage  of  Spain  and  the  best  in- 
terests of  the  Church,  the  former  must  be  sacrificed  relentlessly 
to  the  latter.  Such  was  the  sovereign's  stern  ideal.  No  seem- 
ing failure  of  his  pohcies  could  shake  his  belief  in  their  funda- 
mental excellence.  That  whatever  he  did  was  done  for  the 
greater  glory  of  God,  that  success  or  failure  depended  upon  the 
inscrutable  will  of  the  Almighty  and  not  upon  himself,  were  his 
guiding  convictions,  which  he  transmitted  to  his  Spanish  suc- 
cessors. Not  only  was  Philip  a  man  of  principles  and  ideals,  but 
he  was  possessed  of  a  boundless  capacity  for  work  and  an  in- 
domitable will.  He  preferred  tact  and  diplomacy  to  war  and 
prowess  of  arms,  though  he  was  quite  wilKng  to  order  his  troops 
to  battle  if  the  object,  in  his  opinion,  was  right.  He  was  per- 
sonally less  accustomed  to  the  sword  than  to  the  pen,  and  no 
clerk  ever  toiled  more  industriously  at  his  papers  than  did  this 
king.  From  early  morning  until  far  into  the  night  he  bent  over 
minutes  and  reports  and  other  business  of  kingcraft.  Naturally 
cautious  and  reserved,  he  was  dignified  arid  princely  in  public. 
In  his  private  life,  he  was  orderly  and  extremely  affectionate  to 
his  family  and  servants.     Loyalty  was  Philip's  best  attribute. 

There  was  a  less  happy  side  to  the  character  of  Philip  II.  His 
free  use  of  the  Inquisition  in  order  to  extirpate  heresy  through- 
out his  dominions  has  rendered  him  in  modern  eyes  an  embodi- 
ment of  bigotry  and  intolerance,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that 
he  lived  in  an  essentially  intolerant  age,  when  rehgious  perse- 
cution was  stock  in  trade  of  Protestants  no  less  than  of  Catho- 
lics. It  is  likewise  true  that  he  constantly  employed  craft  and 
deceit  and  was  ready  to  make  use  of  assassination  for  political 
purposes,  but  this  too  was  in  accordance  with  the  temper  of  the 
times  :  lawyers  then  taught,  following  the  precepts  of  the  famous 
historian  and  political  philosopher,  ]Machia\'cIli,  that  Christian 
morality  is  a  guide  for  private  conduct  rather  than  for  pubHc 


FOUNDATIONS   OF    MODERN    EUROPE  89 

business,  and  that  "the  Prince"  may  act  above  the  laws  in 
order  to  promote  the  public  good,  and  even  such  famous  Protes- 
tant leaders  as  CoHgny  and  William  the  Silent  entered  into  murder 
plots.  But  when  all  due  allowances  have  been  made^  the  stu- 
dent cannot  help  feeUng  that  the  purpose  of  PhiUp  II  would 
have  been  served  better  by  the  employment  of  means  other  than 
persecution  and  murder. 

The  reign  of  PhiUp  II  covered  approximately  the  second  half  of 
the  sixteenth  century  (i 556-1 598).  In  his  efforts  to  make  Spain 
the  greatest  power  in  the  world  and  to  restore  the  unity  problems 
of  Christendom,  he  was  doomed  to  failure.  The  chief  Confronting 
reason  for  the  failure  is  simple  —  the  number  and  ^^ 
variety  of  the  problems  and  projects  Mith  which  Philip  II  was 
concerned.  It  was  a  case  of  the  king  putting  a  finger  in  too 
many  pies  —  he  was  cruelly  burned.  Could  Philip  II  have  de- 
voted all  his  energies  to  one  thing  at  a  time,  he  might  conceiv- 
ably have  had  greater  success,  but  as  it  was,  he  must  divide  his 
attention  between  supervising  the  complex  administration  of 
his  already  wide  dominions  and  annexing  in  addition  the  mon- 
archy and  empire  of  Portugal,  between  promoting  a  vigorous 
commercial  and  colonial  policy  and  suppressing  a  stubborn  re- 
volt in  the  Netherlands,  between  championing  Catholicism  in 
both  England  and  France  and  protecting  Christendom  against 
the  victorious  Mohammedans.  It  was  this  multiphcity  of  inter- 
ests that  paralyzed  the  might  of  the  Spanish  monarch,  yet  each 
one  of  his  foreign  activities  was  epochal  in  the  history  of  the 
country  affected.  We  shall  therefore  briefly  review  Philip's 
acti\dties  in  order. 

As  we  have  seen,  Philip  II  inherited  a  number  of  states  which 
had  separate  poHtical  institutions  and  customs.  He  believed  in 
national  unification,  at  least  of  Spain.  National  uni-  ^^^^  ^^^^j. 
fication  impHed  uniformity,  and  uniformity  impHed  PMip  11 : 
greater  power  of  the  crown.  So  Phihp  sought  to  fur- 
ther the  work  of  his  great-grandparents,  Ferdinand  and  Isabella, — 
absolutism  and  uniformity  became  his  watchwords  in  internal 
administration.  PoHtically  Phihp  made  no  pretense  of  consult- 
ing the  Cortes  on  legislation,  and,  although  he  convoked  them 
to  vote  new  taxes,  he  estabhshed  the  rule  that  the  old  taxes 
were  to  be  considered  as  granted  in  perpetuity  and  as  constitut- 


90  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

ing  the  ordinary  revenue  of  the  crown.  He  treated  the  nobles 
as  ornamental  rather  than  useful,  retiring  them  from  royal  offices 
in  favor  of  lawyers  and  other  subservient  members  of  the  middle 
class.  All  business  was  conducted  by  correspondence  and  with  a 
final  reference  to  the  king,  and  the  natural  result  was  endless 
delay. 

Financially  and  economically  the  period  was  unfortunate  for 
Spain.  The  burden  of  the  host  of  foreign  enterprises  fell  with 
Spain  under  crushing  Weight  upon  the  Spanish  kingdom  and  partic- 
Phiiipii:  ularly  upon  Castile.  Aragon,  which  was  poor  and 
cononuc  jealous  of  its  own  rights,  would  give  little.  The  in- 
come from  the  Netherlands,  at  first  large,  was  stopped  by  the 
revolt.  The  Italian  states  barely  paid  expenses.  The  revenue 
from  the  American  mines,  which  has  been  greatly  exaggerated, 
enriched  the  pockets  of  individuals  rather  than  the  treasury  of 
the  state.  In  Spain  itself,  the  greater  part  of  the  land  was 
owned  by  the  ecclesiastical  corporations  and  the  nobles,  who  were 
exempt  from  taxation  but  were  intermittently  fleeced.  More- 
over, the  lo  per  cent  tax  on  all  sales  —  the  alcabala  ^  —  gradually 
paralyzed  all  native  industrial  enterprise.  And  the  persecution 
of  wealthy  and  industrious  Jews  and  Moors  diminished  the  re- 
sources of  the  kingdom.  Spain,  at  the  close  of  the  century,  was 
on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy. 

In  religious  matters  Philip  II  aimed  at  uniform  adherence  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Cathohc  Church.  He  felt,  like  so 
Spain  under  ^n^i^Y  of  his  contemporaries,  that  disparity  of  beHef 
Philip  II:  among  subjects  would  imperil  a  state.  Both  from 
Religious  political  motives  and  from  rehgious  zeal  Philip  was  a 
CathoKc.  He  therefore  advised  the  pope,  watched  with  interest 
the  proceedings  of  the  great  Council  of  Trent  which  was  engaged 
with  the  reformation  of  the  Church,^  and  labored  for  the  triumph 
of  his  religion  not  only  in  his  own  dominions  and  in  France,  but 
also  in  Poland,  in  England,  and  even  in  Scandinavia.  In  Spain 
he  strengthened  the  Inquisition  and  used  it  as  a  tool  of  royal 
despotism. 

Territorially  Philip  II  desired  to  complete  political  unity  in 
the  peninsula  by  combining  the  crown  of  Portugal  with  those  of 
Castile  and  Aragon.     He  himself  was   closely  related    to    the 

1  See  above,  p.  57.  ^  See  below,  pp.  158  ff. 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN  EUROPE      91 

Portuguese  royal  family,  and  in  1580  he  laid  formal  claim  to 
that  kingdom.     The  duke  of  Braganza,  whose  claim  was  better 
than  Philip's,  was  bought  oil  by  immense  grants  and 
the  country  was  overrun  by  Spanish  troops.     Philip  union  of  ^ 
endeavored  to  placate  the  Portuguese  bv  full  recogni-  ^p^'°  *"<* 

P     ,     .  .        .         ,      .    1  ,    .  .      ,        Portugal 

tion  of  their  constitutional  rights  and  in  particular 

by  favoring  the  lesser  nobility  or  country  gentry.  Although 
the  monarchies  and  vast  colonial  possessions  of  Spain  and  Portugal 
were  thus  joined  for  sixty  years  under  a  common  king,  the  ar- 
rangement ne\-er  commanded  any  affection  in  Portugal,  with  the 
result  that  at  the  first  opportunity,  in  1640,  Portuguese  independ- 
ence was  restored  under  the  leadership  of  the  Braganza  family. 
The  most  serious  domestic  difficulty  which  Philip  had  to  face 
was  the  revolt  of  the  rich  and  populous  Netherlands,  which  we 
shall  discuss  presently.     But  with  other  revolts  the  „  ,  ,.. 

/  „  Rebellions 

king  had  to  contend.     In  his  ertorts  to  stamp  out  against 
heresy  and  peculiar  customs  among  the  descendants  P^'^p.^^ 
of  the  Moors  who  still  lived  in  the  southern  part  of 
Spain,  PhiHp  aroused  armed  opposition.     The  Moriscos,  as  they 
were  called,  struggled  desperately  from  1568  to  1570  to  reestab- 
lish the  independence  of  Granada.     This  rebellion  was  suppressed 
with  great  cruelty,  and  the  surviving  Moriscos  were  forced  to 
find  new  homes  in  less  favored  parts  of  Spain  until  their  final 
expulsion  from  the  country  in  1609.     A  revolt  of  Aragon  in  1591 
was  put  down  by  a  Castihan  army ;   the  constitutional  rights  of 
Aragon  were  diminished  and  the  kingdom  was  reduced  to  a 
greater  measure  of  submission. 

The  causes  that  led  to  the  revolt  of  the  Netherlands  may  be 
stated  as  fourfold,  (i)  Financial.  The  burdensome  taxes  which 
Charles  V  had  laid  upon  the  country  were  increased 

Revolt 

by  PhiUp  II  and  often  apphed  to  defray  the  expenses  ^^  ^^^ 
of  other  parts  of  the  Spanish  possessions.     Further-  Nether- 
more,    the   restrictions   which   Philip   imposed   upon  c^us^s 
Dutch  commerce  in   the  interest  of   that  of   Spain 
threatened    to   interfere   seriously  with   the   wonted   economic 
prosperity  of  the  Netherlands.     (2)  PoKtical.     PhiHp  II  sought 
to  centralize  authority  in  the  Netherlands  and  despotically  de- 
prived the  cities  and  nobles  of  many  of  their  traditional  privi- 
leges.    Philip  never  visited  the  country  in  person  after  1559,  and 


92  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

he  intrusted  his  arbitrary  government  to  regents  and  to  Span- 
iards rather  than  to  native  leaders.  The  scions  of  the  old  and 
proud  noble  families  of  the  Netherlands  naturally  resented  being 
supplanted  in  lucrative  and  honorable  public  offices  by  persons 
whom  they  could  regard  only  as  upstarts.  (3)  Religious.  De- 
spite the  rapid  and  universal  spread  of  Calvinistic  Protestantism 
throughout  the  northern  provinces,  Philip  was  resolved  to  force 
CathoUcism  upon  all  of  his  subjects.  He  increased  the  number 
of  bishoprics,  decreed  acts  of  uniformity,  and  in  a  vigorous  way 
utiUzed  the  Inquisition  to  carry  his  pohcy  into  effect.  (4)  Per- 
sonal. The  Dutch  and  Flemish  loved  Charles  V  because  he  had 
been  born  and  reared  among  them  and  always  considered  their 
country  as  his  native  land.  Phihp  II  was  born  and  brought  up 
in  Spain.  He  spoke  a  language  foreign  to  the  Netherlands,  and 
by  their  inhabitants  he  was  thought  of  as  an  aHen. 

At  first  the  opposition  in  the  Netherlands  was  directed  chiefly 

against  the  Inquisition  and  the  presence  of  Spanish  garrisons  in 

the  towns.     The  regent,  Margaret  of  Parma,  Philip's 

of  Parma       half-sistcr,  endeavored  to  banish  pubHc  discontent  by 

and  the  g^  fg^  concessions.    The  Spanish  troops  were  withdrawn 

"  Beggars  ,  ,    .  .        . 

and  certam  unpopular  ofiicials  were  dismissed.  But 
influential  noblemen  and  burghers  banded  themselves  together 
early  in  1566  and  presented  to  the  regent  Margaret  a  petition, 
in  which,  while  protesting  their  loyalty,  they  expressed  fear  of  a 
general  revolt  and  begged  that  a  special  embassy  be  sent  to 
Philip  to  urge  upon  him  the  necessity  of  abolishing  the  Inquisi- 
tion and  of  redressing  their  other  grievances.  The  regent,  at 
first  disquieted  by  the  petitioners,  was  reassured  by  one  of  her 
advisers,  who  exclaimed,  "What,  Madam,  is  your  Highness 
afraid  of  these  beggars  {ces  gueux)?'^  Henceforth  the  chief 
opponents  of  Philip's  policies  in  the  Netherlands  humorously 
labeled  themselves  "Beggars"  and  assumed  the  emblems  of 
common  begging,  the  wallet  and  the  bowl.  The  fashion  spread 
quickly,  and  the  "Beggars' "  insignia  were  everywhere  to  be  seen, 
worn  as  trinkets,  especially  in  the  large  towns.  In  accordance 
with  the  "Beggars'"  petition,  an  embassy  was  dispatched  to 
Spain  to  lay  the  grievances  before  Philip  II. 

PhiHp  II  at  first  promised  to  abolish  the  Inquisition  in  the 
Netherlands,  but  soon  repented  of  his  promise.     For  meanwhile 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  93 

mobs  of  fanatical  Protestants,   far  more  radical  than   the  re- 
spectable   "Beggars,"    were    rushing    to  arms,    breaking    into 
Catholic  churches,  wrecking  the  altars,  smashing  the 
images  to  pieces,  profaning  monasteries,  and  showing  ^"a^jn^the 
in  their  retaliation  as  much  violence  as  their  enemies  Nether- 
had  shown  cruelty  in  i)crsecution.     In  August,   1566,   ^^^A^_\ 
this  sacrilegious  iconoclasm  reached  its  climax  in  the 
irreparable  ruin  of  the  magnificent  cathedral  at  Antwerp.     Philip 
replied  to  these  acts,  wdiich  he  interpreted  as  disloyalty,  by  send- 
ing (1567)  his  most  famous  general,  the  duke  of  Alva,  into  the 
Netherlands  with  a  large  army  and  with  instructions  to  cow  the 
people  into  submission.     Alva  proved  himself  quite  capable  of 
understanding  and  executing  his  master's  wishes  :    one  of  his 
first  acts  was  the  creation  of  a  "Council  of  Troubles,"  an  arbi- 
trary tribunal  which  tried  cases  of  treason  and  which  operated 
so  notoriously  as  to  merit  its  popular  appellation  of  the  "Coun- 
cil of  Blood."     During  the  duke's  stay  of  six  years,  it  has  been 
estimated  that  eight  thousand  persons  were  executed,  including 
the  counts  of  Egmont  and  Horn,  thirty  thousand  were  despoiled 
of  their  property,  and  one  hundred  thousand  quitted  the  coun- 
try.    Alva,  moreover,  levied  an  enormous  tax  of  one-tenth  upon 
the   price  of   merchandise   sold.     As  the  tax  was   collected  on 
several  distinct  processes,  it  absorbed  at  least  seven-tenths  of 
the  value  of  certain  goods  —  of  cloth,  for  instance.     The  tax, 
together  with   the  lawless   confusion   throughout   the   country, 
meant  the  destruction  of  Flemish  manufactures  and  trade.     It 
was,  therefore,  quite  natural  that  the  burgesses  of  the  southern 
Netherlands,  CathoHc  though  most  of  them  were,  should  unite 
with  the  nobles  and  w^ith  the  Protestants  of  the  North  in  opposing 
Spanish  tyranny.     The  whole  country  was  now  called  to  arms. 
One  of  the  principal  noblemen  of  the  Netherlands  was  a  Ger- 
man, William  of  Nassau,  prince  of  Orange.^     He  had 
been  governing  the  provinces  of  Holland  and  Zeeland  the  snent, 
when  Alva  arrived,  but  as  he  was  already  at  the  Pn^^eof 

Orange 

point  of  accepting  Protestantism  he  had  prudently 

retired  into  Germany,  leaving  his  estates  to  be  confiscated  by 

MVilliam  (1533-1584),  now  commonly  called  "the  Silent."  There  appears 
to  be  no  contemporaneous  justification  of  the  adjective  as  applied  to  him,  but  the 
misnomer,  once  adopted  by  later  writers,  has  insistently  clung  to  him. 


94  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  Spanish  governor.  Certain  trifling  successes  of  the  insurgents 
now  called  William  back  to  head  the  popular  movement.  For 
many  years  he  bore  the  brunt  of  the  war  and  proved  himself 
not  only  a  resourceful  general,  but  an  able  diplomat  and  a  whole- 
souled  patriot.  He  eventually  gained  the  admiration  and  love 
of  the  whole  Dutch  people. 

The  first  armed  forces  of  Wilham  of  Orange  were  easily  routed 
by  Alva,  but  in  1569  a  far  more  menacing  situation  was  presented. 
The  "  Sea  In  that  year  Wilham  began  to  charter  corsairs  and 
Beggars "  privateers  to  prey  upon  Spanish  shipping.  These 
"Sea  Beggars,"  as  they  were  called,  were  mostly  wild  and  law- 
less desperadoes  who  stopped  at  nothing  in  their  hatred  of  Catho- 
hcs  and  Spaniards :  they  early  laid  the  foundations  of  Dutch 
maritime  power  and  at  the  same  time  proved  a  constant  torment 
to  Alva.  They  made  frequent  incursions  into  the  numerous 
waterways  of  the  Netherlands  and  perpetually  fanned  the  embers 
of  revolt  on  land.  Gradually  Wilham  collected  new  armies, 
which  more  and  more  successfully  defied  Alva. 

The  harsh  tactics  of  Alva  had  failed  to  restore  the  Netherlands 

to  PhiHp's  control,  and  in  1573  Alva  was  replaced  in  the  regency 

by  the  more  poHtic  Requesens,  who  continued  the 

"  Spanish      Struggle  as  best  he  could  but  with  even  less  success 

^"''^"  fi?^     than  Alva.     Soon  after  Requesens's  death  in  i  S76,  the 

the  Pflcifi-  v^ » 

cation  of  Spanish  army  in  the  Netherlands,  left  without  pay  or 
Ghent,  food,  mutinied  and  inflicted  such  horrible  indignities 

upon  several  cities,  notably  Antwerp,  that  the  savage 
attack  is  called  the  "Spanish  Fury."  Deputies  of  all  the  seven- 
teen provinces  at  once  concluded  an  agreement,  termed  the 
Pacification  of  Ghent  (1576),  by  which  they  mutually  guaran- 
teed resistance  to  the  Spanish  until  the  king  should  abolish  the 
Inquisition  and  restore  their  oldtime  liberties. 

Then  Philip  II  tried  a  poHcy  of  concession,  but  the  jiew  gover- 
nor, the  dashing  Don  John  of  Austria,  fresh  from  a  great  naval 
victory  over  the  Turks,  soon  discovered  that  it  was  too  late  to 
reconcile  the  Protestantfe.  William  the  Silent  was  wary  of  the 
Spanish  offers,  and  Don  John  died  in  1578  without  having 
achieved  very  much. 

But  Philip  II  was  not  without  some  success  in  the  Nether- 
lands.    He  was  fortunate  in  having  a  particularly  determined 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  95 

and  tactful  governor  in  the  country  from  1578  to  1592  in  the 
person  of  Alexander  Farnese,  duke  of  Parma.      Skillfully  min- 
gling war  and  diplomacy,  Farnese  succeeded  in  sowing  parnese 
discord  between  the  northern  and  southern  provinces  :  Duke  of 
the  former  were  Dutch,  Calvinist,  and  commercial ;     ^'^"^ 
the  latter  were  Flemish  and  Walloon,  Catholic,  and  industrial. 
The  ten  southern  provinces  might  eventually  have  more  to  fear 
from  the  North  than  from  continued  union  with  Spain ;    their 
representatives,  therefore,  signed  a  defensive  league 
at  Arras  in  1579  for  the  protection  of  the  Catholic  re-  ^^  Irras^  ^ 
ligion  and  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  effecting  a  and  the 
reconciliation  with  Philip  II.     In  the  same  year  the  Utrecht 
northern  provinces  agreed  to  the  Union  of  Utrecht,   (1579): 
binding   themselves   together   "as  if   they  were  one  manent 
province"  to  maintain  their  rights  and  liberties  "with  Division  of 
life-blood  and  goods"  against  Spanish  tyranny  and  to  i^nds^   ^^ 
grant  complete  freedom  of  worship  and  of  religious 
opinion  throughout  the  confederation.     In  this  way  the  Pacifi- 
cation of  Ghent  was  nullified  and  the  Netherlands  were  split  into 
two  parts,  each  going  its  own  way,  each  developing  its  own  his- 
tory.    The  southern  portion  was  to  remain  in  Habsburg  hands  for 
over  two  centuries,  being  successively  termed  "Spanish  Nether- 
lands" and  "Austrian  Netherlands"  —  roughly  speaking,  it  is 
what  to-day  we  call  Belgium.     The  northern  portion  was  to 
become  free  and  independent,  and,  as  the  "United  Provinces" 
or  simply  "Holland,"  to  take  its  place  among  the  nations  of  the 
world.     For  a  considerable  period  of  time  Holland  was  destined 
to  be  more  prosperous  than  Belgium.     The  latter  suffered  more 
grievously  than  the  former  from  the  actual  hostilities ;   and  the 
Dutch,  by  closing  the  River  Scheldt  and  dominating  the  adjacent 
seas,  dealt  a  mortal  blow  at  the  industrial  and  commercial  su- 
premacy of  Antwerp  and  transferred  the  chief  trade  and  business 
of  all  the  Netherlands  to  their  own  city  of  Amsterdam. 

For  many  years  the  struggle  dragged  on.  At  times  it  seemed 
probable  that  Farnese  and  the  Spaniards  would  overcome  the 
North  by  force  as  they  had  obtained  the  South  by  diplomacy. 
But  a  variety  of  reasons  explain  the  ultimate  success  of  the 
Dutch.  The  nature  of  the  country  rendered  ordinary  cam- 
paigning very   difficult  —  the   network   of    canals    constituted 


96  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

natural  lines  of  defense  and  the  cutting  of  the   dikes   might 
easily  imperil  an  invading  army.     Again,   the   seafaring   pro- 
pensities of  the  Dutch  stimulated  them  to  fit  out  an 
for  the  increasing   number    of   privateers    which    constantly 

Success  of     preyed  upon  Spanish  commerce :  it  was  not  long  be- 

the  Dutch        K      ^    ,  .    ^     ^^   ^  .  i  i      .   .  -, 

fore  this  traffic  grew  miportant  and  legitimate,  so  that 
in  the  following  century  Amsterdam  became  one  of  the  greatest 
cities  of  the  world,  and  Holland  assumed  a  prominent  place  among 
commercial  and  colonial  nations.  Thirdly,  the  employment  of  for- 
eign mercenaries  in  the  army  of  defense  enabled  the  native  popu- 
lation to  devote  the  more  time  to  peaceful  pursuits,  and,  despite 
the  persistence  of  war,  the  Dutch  provinces  increased  steadily  in 
wealth  and  prosperity.  Fourthly,  the  cautious  Fabian  policy  of 
William  the  Silent  prevented  the  Dutch  from  staking  heavily  upon 
battles  in  the  open  field.  Fifthly,  the  Dutch  received  a  good  deal 
of  assistance  from  Protestants  of  Germany,  England,  and  France. 
Finally,  Philip  II  pursued  too  many  great  projects  at  once  to  be 
able  to  bring  a  single  one  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion :  his  war 
with  Queen  Elizabeth  of  England  and  his  interference  in  the  affairs 
of  France  inextricably  complicated  his  plans  in  the  Netherlands. 
In  1 581  Philip  II  published  a  ban  against  William  of  Orange, 
proclaiming  him  a  traitor  and  an  outlaw  and  offering  a  reward 

to  any  one  who  would  take  him  dead  or  alive.  William 
D°Xration  replied  by  his  famous  "Apology"  to  the  charges 
of  Dutch  agamst  him ;  but  his  practical  answer  to  the  king 
ence^^isSi     ^^^  ^^^  ^^^  °^  Abjuration,  by  which  at  his  persuasion 

the  representatives  of  the  northern  provinces,  assem- 
bled at  The  Hague,  solemnly  proclaimed  their  separation  from 
the  crown  of  Spain,  broke  the  royal  seal  of  Philip  II,  and  declared 
the  king  deprived  of  all  authority  over  them.  We  should  call 
this  Act  of  1 58 1  the  Dutch  declaration  of  independence.  It  was 
an  augury  of  the  definitive  result  of  the  war. 

Although  William  the  Silent  was  assassinated  by  an  agent  of 
Spain  (1584),  and  Antwerp  was  captured  from  the  Protestants 

in  I  s8s,  the  ability  and  genius  of  Farncse  did  not  avail 

Recognition  ,         r  n  t  1  •  1        tt      •  1   t-. 

of  Dutch        to  make  further  headway  against  the  U  mtcd  Provinces ; 

independ-      j^^^  Philip  II,  stubbom  to  the  end,  positively  refused  to 

recognize  Dutch  independence.     In  160Q  Philip  III  of 

Spain  consented  to  a  twelve  years'  truce  with  the  States-General 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN  EUROPE      97 

of  The  Hague.  In  the  Thirty  Years'  War  (1618-1648)  the  Dutch 
and  Spaniards  again  became  embroiled,  and  the  freedom  of  the  re- 
pul)Hc  was  not  recognized  officially  by  Spain  till  the  general  peace 
of  Westphalia  in  1648.^ 

The  seven  provinces,  which  had  waged  such  long  war  with 
Spain,  constituted,  by  mutual  agreement,  a  confederacy,  each 
preserving  a  distinct  local  government  and  administration,  but 
all  subject  to  a  general  parliament  —  the  States-General  — 
and  to  a  stadtholder,  or  governor-general,  an  office  which  subse- 
quently became  hereditary  in  the  Orange  family.  Between  the 
States-General  and  the  stadtholder,  a  constitutional  conffict 
was  carried  on  throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  seventeenth 
century  —  the  former,  supported  by  well-to-do  burghers,  favor- 
ing a  greater  measure  of  poUtical  democracy,  the  latter,  upheld 
by  aristocratically  minded  nobles,  laboring  for  the  development 
of  monarchical  institutions  under  the  Orange  family. 

Not  only  his  efforts  in  the  Netherlands  but  many  other  proj- 
ects of  Philip  II  were  frustrated  by  remarkable  parallel  develop- 
ments in  the  two  national  monarchies  of  England  and  „ 

^  _,      ,       ,  .  iT      •      1  Natural 

France.     Both  these  countries  were  naturally  jealous  opposition 
and  fearful  of  an  undue  expansion  of  Spain,  which  °^  England 

and  France 

might  upset  the  balance  of  power.  Both  states,  from  to  the 
their  geographical  locations,  would  normally  be  inimi-  pf V"^^."^ 
cal  to  PhiHp  II :  England  would  desire,  from  her  island 
position,  to  destroy  the  monopoly  which  Spain  claimed  of  the 
carrying  trade  of  the  seas ;  France,  still  encircled  by  Habsburg 
possessions  in  Spain,  Italy,  and  the  Netherlands,  would  adhere 
to  her  traditional  policy  of  allying  herself  with  every  foe  of  the 
Spanish  king.  Then,  too,  the  papal  authority  had  been  rejected 
in  England  and  seriously  questioned  in  France :  Philip's  crusad- 
ing zeal  made  him  the  champion  of  the  Church  in  those  coun- 
tries. For  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  for  economic  and  political 
purposes  it  seemed  necessary  to  the  Spanish  king  that  he  should 
bring  France  and  England  under  his  direct  influence.  On  their 
side,  patriotic  French  and  English  resented  such  foreign  interest 
in  their  domestic  affairs,  and  the  eventual  failure  of  Philip  regis- 
tered a  wonderful  growth  of  national  feeling  among  the  peoples 
who  victoriously  contended  against  him.     The  beginnings  of  the 

^  See  below,  p.  229. 


98  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

real  modern  greatness  of  France  and  England  date  from  their 
struggle  with  Philip  II. 

At  the  outset  of  his  reign,  Philip  seemed  quite  successful  in 
his  foreign  relations.  As  we  have  seen,  he  was  in  alliance  with 
Philip  II  England  through  his  marriage  with  Queen  Mary 
and  Mary  Tudor  (1553-1558) :  shc  had  temporarily  restored  the 
"  °^  English  Church  to  communion  with  the  Holy  See,  and 

was  conducting  her  foreign  policy  in  harmony  with  Philip's  — 
because  of  her  husband  she  lost  to  the  French  the  town  of  Calais, 
the  last  English  possession  on  the  Continent  (i 558).  Likewise,  as 
has  been  said,  Philip  II  concluded  with  France  in  1559  the  advan- 
tageous treaty  of  Cateau-Cambresis.  But  during  the  ensuing 
thirty  years  the  tables  were  completely  turned.  Both  England 
and  France  ended  by  securing  respite  from  Spanish  interference. 

Mary  Tudor  died  unhappy  and  childless  in  1558,  and  the  suc- 
cession of  her  sister  Queen  Ehzabeth,  daughter  of  Flenry  VIII 
Philip  II  ^^'^  Anne  Boleyn,  altered  the  relations  between  the 
and  Eliza-  English  and  Spanish  courts.  Elizabeth  (1558-1603) 
^  was  possessed  of  an  imperious,   haughty,   energetic 

character ;  she  had  remarkable  intelligence  and  an  absorbing 
patriotism.  She  inspired  confidence  in  her  advisers  and  respect 
among  her  people,  so  that  she  was  commonly  called  "Good 
Queen  Bess"  despite  the  fact  that  her  habits  of  deceit  and 
double-dealing  gave  color  to  the  French  king's  remark  that  she 
was  the  greatest  liar  in  Christendom.  This  was  the  woman 
with  whom  Philip  II  had  to  deal ;  he  tried  many  tactics  in  order 
to  gain  his  ends,  —  all  of  them  hopelessly  unsuccessful. 

Philip  first  proposed  matrimony,  but  Elizabeth  was  very  care- 
ful not  to  give  herself,  or  England,  such  a  master.  Then  when 
the  queen  declared  herself  a  Protestant  and  showed  no  inclina- 
tion to  assist  Philip  in  any  of  his  enterprises,  the  Spanish  king 
proceeded  to  plot  against  her  throne.  He  subsidized  Roman 
Catholic  priests,  especially  Jesuits,  who  violated  the  laws  of  the 
land.  He  stirred  up  sedition  and  even  went  so  far  as  to  plan 
EHzabeth's  assassination.  Many  conspiracies  against  the  Eng- 
lish queen  centered  in  the  person  of  the  ill-starred  Mary  Stuart,^ 
queen  of  Scotland,  who  was  next  in  line  of  succession  to  the 
English  throne  and  withal  a  Catholic, 

^  Mary  Stuart  (1542-1587). 


FOUNDATIONS   OF    MODERN   EUROPE  99 

Descended  from  the  Stuart  kings  of  Scotland  and  from  Henry 
VII  of  England,  related  to  the  powerful  family  of  Guise  in 
France,  ]Mary  had  been  brought  up  at  the  French  Mary 
court  and  married  to  the  short-lived  French  king,  Stuart 
Francis  II.  Upon  the  death  of  the  latter  she  returned  in  1561 
to  Scotland,  a  young  woman  of  but  eighteen  years,  only  to  find 
that  the  government  had  fallen  victim  to  the  prevalent  factional 
fights  among  the  Scotch  nobles  and  that  in  the  preceding  year 
the  parliament  had  solemnly  adopted  a  Calvinistic  form  of 
Protestantism.  By  means  of  tact  and  mildness,  however, 
Mary  won  the  respect  of  the  nobles  and  the  admiration  of  the 
people,  until  a  series  of  marital  troubles  and  blunders  —  her 
marriage  with  a  worthless  cousin,  Henry  Darnley,  and  then  her 
scandalous  marriage  with  Darnley's  profligate  murderer,  the 
earl  of  Bothwell  —  alienated  her  people  from  her  and  drove  her 
into  exile.  She  abdicated  the  throne  of  Scotland  in  favor  of 
her  infant  son,  James  VI,  who  was  reared  a  Protestant  and  sub- 
sequently became  King  James  I  of  England,  and  she  then  (1568) 
threw  herself  upon  the  mercy  of  Elizabeth.  She  thought  she 
would  find  in  England  a  haven  of  refuge ;  instead  she  found 
there  a  prison. 

For  the  score  of  years  during  which  she  remained  Elizabeth's 
prisoner,  Mary  Stuart  was  the  object  of  many  plots  and  con- 
spiracies against  the  existing  governments  of  both  Scotland  and 
England.  In  every  such  scheme  were  to  be  found  the  machi- 
nations and  money  of  the  Spanish  king.  In  fact,  as  time  went 
on,  it  seemed  to  a  growing  section  of  the  English  people  as  though 
the  cause  of  Elizabeth  was  bound  up  with  Protestantism  and  with 
national  independence  and  prosperity  just  as  certainly  as  the 
success  of  Mary  would  lead  to  the  triumph  of  Catholicism,  the 
political  supremacy  of  Spain,  and  the  commercial  ruin  of  Eng- 
land. It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  Mary's  fate  was 
sealed.  Because  of  a  political  situation  over  which  she  had 
shght  control,  the  ex-queen  of  Scotland  was  beheaded  by  Eliza- 
beth's orders  in  1587. 

Philip  II  had  now  tried  and  failed  in  every  expedient  but  one, 
—  the  employment  of  sheer  force.  Even  this  he  attempted  in 
order  to  avenge  the  death  of  Mary  Stuart  and  to  bring  England, 
poHtically,  rehgiously,  and  commercially,  into  harmony  with  his 


lOO  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Spanish  policies.  The  story  of  the  preparation  and  the  fate  of 
the  Invincible  Armada  is  almost  too  well  known  to  require  rep- 
The  etition.     It  was  in   1588  that  there  issued  from  the 

Armada  mouth  of  the  Tagus  River  the  most  formidable  fleet 
which  up  to  that  time  Christendom  had  ever  beheld  —  130 
ships,  8000  seamen,  19,000  soldiers,  the  flower  of  the  Spanish 
chivalry.  In  the  Netherlands  it  was  to  be  joined  by  Alexander 
Farnese  with  33,000  veteran  troops.  But  in  one  important  re- 
spect Philip  had  underestimated  his  enemy :  he  had  counted 
upon  a  divided  country.  Now  the  attack  upon  England  was 
primarily  national,  rather  than  religious,  and  Catholics  vied 
with  Protestants  in  offering  aid  to  the  queen :  it  was  a  united 
rather  than  a  divided  nation  which  Philip  faced.  The  English 
fleet,  composed  of  comparatively  small  and  easily  maneuvered 
vessels,  worked  great  havoc  upon  the  ponderous  and  slow- 
moving  Spanish  galleons,  and  the  wreck  of  the  Armada  was 
completed  by  a  furious  gale  which  tossed  ship  after  ship  upon 
the  rocks  of  northern  Scotland.  Less  than  a  third  of  the  original 
expedition  ever  returned  to  Spain. 

Philip  II  had  thus  failed  in  his  herculean  effort  against  Eng- 
land. He  continued  in  small  ways  to  annoy  and  to  irritate 
Elizabeth.  He  tried  —  without  result  —  to  incite  the  Catholics 
of  Ireland  against  the  queen.  He  exhausted  his  arsenals  and  his 
treasures  in  despairing  attempts  to  equip  a  second  and  even  a 
third  Armada.  But  he  was  doomed  to  bitterest  disappointment, 
for  two  years  before  his  death  an  English  fleet  sacked  his  own 
great  port  of  Cadiz.  The  war  with  England  ruined  the  navy 
and  the  commerce  of  Spain.  The  defeat  of  the  Armada  was 
England's  first  title  to  commercial  supremacy. 

It  was  long  maintained  that  the  underlying  causes  of  the  con- 
flict between  England  and  Spain  in  the  second  half  of  the  six- 
teenth century  and  its  chief  interest  was  religious  — 
Benefi^'^  that  it  was  part  of  an  epic  struggle  between  Protes- 
of  the  tantism  and  Catholicism.     There  may  be  a  measure  of 

Engiand°'^  truth  in  such  an  idea,  but  most  recent  writers  believe 
that  the  chief  motives  for  the  conflict,  as  well  as  its 
important  results,  were  essentially  economic.  From  the  begin- 
ning of  Elizabeth's  reign,  English  sailors  and  freebooters,  such  as 
Hawkins  and  Drake,  took  the  offensive  against  Spanish  trade 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   ^lODERN  EUROPE  loi 

and  commerce ;  and  many  ships,  laden  with  silver  and  goods 
from  the  New  World  and  bound  for  Cadiz,  were  seized  and  towed 
into  English  harbors.  The  queen  herself  frequently  received  a 
share  of  the  booty  and  therefore  tended  to  encourage  the  practice. 
For  nearly  thirty  years  Philip  put  up  with  the  capture  of  his 
treasure  ships,  the  raiding  of  his  colonies,  and  the  open  assist- 
ance rendered  to  his  rebellious  subjects.  Only  when  he  reached 
the  conclusion  that  his  power  would  never  be  secure  in  the 
Netherlands  or  in  America  did  he  dispatch  the  Armada.  Its 
failure  finally  freed  Holland  and  marked  the  collapse  of  the 
Spanish  monopoly  upon  the  high  seas  and  in  the  New  World. 

Before  we  can  appreciate  the  mo'tives  and  results  of  the  in- 
terference of  Philip  II  in  French  affairs,  a  few  words  must  be 
said  about  what  had  happened  in  France  since  Fran-  Affairs  in 
cis  I  (1515-1547)  and  his  son,  Henry  II  (1547-1559),  France 
exalted  the  royal  power  in  their  country  and  not  only  preserved 
French  independence  of  the  surrounding  empire  of  Charles  V 
but  also  increased  French  prestige  by  means  of  a  strong  pohcy 
in  Italy  and  by  the  extension  of  frontiers  toward  the  Rhine. 
Henry  II  had  married  a  member  of  the  famous  Florentine  family 
of  the  ]\Iedici  —  Catherine  de'  Medici  —  a  large  and  ugly  woman, 
but  ambitious,  resourceful,  and  capable,  who,  by  means  of 
trickery  and  deceit,  took  an  active  part  in  French  politics  from 
the  death  of  her  husband,  throughout  the  reigns  of  her  feeble 
sons,  Francis  II  (1559-1560),  Charles  IX  (1560-1574),  and 
Henry  III  (15 74-1 589).  Catherine  found  her  position  and  that 
of  her  royal  children  continually  threatened  by  (i)  the  Protes- 
tants (Huguenots),  (2)  the  great  nobles,  and  (3)  Philip  II  of 
Spain. 

French  Protestantism  had  grown  steadily  during  the  first  half 
of  the  sixteenth  century  until  it  was  estimated  that  from  a 
twentieth  to  a  thirtieth  of  the  nation  had  fallen  away  Dangers 
from  the  Cathohc  Church.     The  influence  of  the  ad-  to  Royal 
vocates  of  the  new  faith  was,  however,  much  greater  prance: 
than  their  number,  because  the  Huguenots,  as  they  Protestant- 
were  called,  were  recruited  mainly  from  the  prosperous, 
intelligent  middle  class,  —  the  bourgeoisie,  —  who  had  been  in- 
trusted by  preceding  French  kings  with  many  important  offices. 
The  Huguenots  represented,  therefore,  a  powerful  social  class 


I02  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  likewise  one  that  was  opposed  to  the  undue  increase  of 
royal  power.  They  demanded,  not  only  religious  toleration  for 
themselves,  but  also  regular  meetings  of  the  Estates-General 
and  control  of  the  nation's  representatives  over  financial  matters. 
The  kings,  on  their  part,  felt  that  pohtical  solidarity  and  their 
own  personal  rule  were  dependent  upon  the  maintenance  of 
religious  uniformity  in  the  nation  and  the  consequent  defeat  of 
the  pretensions  of  the  Huguenots.  Francis  I  and  Henry  II  had 
persecuted  the  Protestants  with  bitterness.  From  1562  to  1593 
a  series  of  so-called  religious  wars  embroiled  the  whole  country. 

French  politics  were  further  complicated  during  the  second 
half  of  the  sixteenth  century  by  the  recrudescence  of  the  power 
of  the  nobles.  The  so-called  religious  wars  were  quite 
to^Royai  ^^  much  political  as  religious  —  they  resulted  from 
Power  in  efforts  of  this  or  that  faction  of  noblemen  to  dictate 
the  Nobles  ^^  ^  weak  king.  Two  noble  families  particularly  vied 
with  each  other  for  power,  —  the  Bourbons  and  the 
Guises,  —  and  the  unqualified  triumph  of  either  would  be  certain 
to  bring  calamity  to  the  sons  of  Catherine  de'  Medici.  The 
Bourbons  bore  the  proud  title  of  princes  of  the  blood  because 
The  they  were  direct  descendants  of  a  French  king.     Their 

Bourbons  descent,  to  be  sure,  was  from  Saint  Louis,  king  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  and  they  were  now,  therefore,  only  distant 
cousins  of  the  reigning  kings,  but  as  the  latter  died  off,  one  after 
another,  leaving  no  direct  successors,  the  Bourbons  by  the 
French  law  of  strict  male  succession  became  heirs  to  the  royal 
family.  The  head  of  the  Bourbons,  a"  certain  Anthony,  had 
married  the  queen  of  Navarre  and  had  become  thereby  king  of 
Navarre,  although  the  greater  part  of  that  country  —  the  region 
south  of  the  Pyrenees  —  had  been  annexed  to  Spain  in  151 2. 
Anthony's  brother  Louis,  prince  of  Conde,  had  a  reputation  for 
bravery,  loyalty,  and  ability.  Both  Conde  and  the  king  of 
Navarre  were  Protestants. 

The  Guise  family  was  descended  from  a  duke  of  Lorraine 
who  had  attached  himself  to  the  court  of  Francis  I.  It  was 
The  Guise  really  a  foreign  family,  inasmuch  as  Lorraine  was  then 
Family  q^  dependency  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  but  the 

patriotic  exploits  of  the  head  of  the  family  in  defending  Metz 
against  the  Emperor  Charles  V  and  in  capturing  Calais  from  the 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  103 

English  endeared  the  Guises  to  a  goodly  part  of  the  French 
nation.  The  duke  of  Guise  remained  a  stanch  Catholic,  and 
his  brother,  called  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  was  head  of  as  many 
as  twelve  bishoprics,  which  gave  him  an  enormous  revenue  and 
made  him  the  most  conspicuous  churchman  in  France.  During 
the  reign  of  Henry  II  (i 547-1 559)  the  Guises  were  especially 
influential.  They  fought  vahantly  in  foreign  wars.  They 
spurred  on  the  king  to  a  great  persecution  of  the  Huguenots. 
They  increased  their  own  landed  estates.  And  they  married 
one  of  their  relatives  —  Mary,  queen  of  Scots  —  to  the  heir  to 
the  throne.  But  after  the  brief  reign  of  Mary's  husband,  Francis 
II  (i 559-1 560),  the  Guise  family  encountered  not  only  the  active 
opposition  of  their  chief  noble  rivals,  the  Bourbons,  with  their 
Huguenot  alhes,  but  hkewise  the  jealousy  and  crafty  intrigues 
of  Catherine  de'  Medici. 

Catherine  feared  both  the  ambition  of  the  powerful  Guise 
family  and  the  disruptive  tendencies  of  Protestantism.  The 
result  was  a  long  series  of  confused  civil  wars  between  Religious 
the  ardent  followers,  respectively  Catholic  and  Protes-  Wars  in 
tant,  of  the  Guise  and  Bourbon  families,  in  which  the  '^^"^^ 
queen-mother  gave  support  first  to  one  side  and  then  to  the 
other.  There  were  no  fewer  than  eight  of  these  sanguinary 
conflicts,  each  one  ending  with  the  grant  of  slight  concessions 
to  the  Huguenots  and  the  maintenance  of  the  weak  kings  upon 
the  throne.  The  massacre  of  Saint  Bartholomew's  Day  (1572) 
was  a  horrible  incident  of  Catherine's  policy  of  "trimming." 
Fearing  the  undue  influence  over  the  king  of  Admiral  de  CoHgny, 
an  upright  and  able  Huguenot  leader,  the  queen-mother,  with 
the  aid  of  the  Guises,  prevailed  upon  the  weak-minded  Charles 
IX  to  authorize  the  wholesale  assassination  of  Protestants. 
The  signal  was  given  by  the  ringing  of  a  Parisian  church-bell 
at  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  24  August,  1572,  and  the 
slaughter  went  on  throughout  the  day  in  the  capital  and  for 
several  weeks  in  the  provinces.  Coligny  was  murdered ;  even 
women  and  children  were  not  spared.  It  is  estimated  that  in 
all  at  least  three  thousand  —  perhaps  ten  thousand  —  lost  their 
lives. 

The  massacre  of  Saint  Bartholomew's  Day  did  not  destroy 
French  Protestantism  or  render    the   Huguenot   leaders   more 


I04  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

timid  in  asserting  their  claims.  On  the  other  hand,  it  brought 
into  clear  hght  a  noteworthy  division  within  the  ranks  of  their 
The  "Poli-  Catholic  opponents  in  France  —  on  one  side,  the  rigor- 
tiques "  Q^g  followers  of  the  Guise  family,  who  complained  only 
that  the  massacre  had  not  been  suihciently  comprehensive,  and, 
on  the  other  side,  a  group  of  moderate  Catholics,  usually  styled 
the  "  Politiques,''  who,  while  continuing  to  adhere  to  the  Roman 
Church,  and,  when  called  upon,  bearing  arms  on  the  side  of  the 
king,  were  strongly  opposed  to  the  employment  of  force  or  vio- 
lence or  persecution  in  matters  of  religion.  The  Politiques  were 
particularly  patriotic,  and  they  blamed  the  religious  wars  and 
the  intolerant  policy  of  the  Guises  for  the  seeming  weakness  of 
the  French  monarchy.  They  thought  the  massacre  of  Saint 
Bartholomew's  Day  a  blunder  as  well  as  a  crime. 

The  emergence  of  the  Politiques  did  not  immediately  make 
for  peace;  rather,  it  substituted  a  three-sided  for  a  two-sided 
conflict. 

After  many  years,  filled  with  disorder,  it  became  apparent 
that  the  children  of  Catherine  de'  Medici  would  have  no  direct 
male  heirs  and  that  the  crown  would  therefore  legally 
and\he  devolvc  upon  the  son  of  Anthony  of  Bourbon  — 
War  of  the  Henry  of  Bourbon,  king  of  Navarre  and  a  Protestant. 
Hemies  Such  an  outcome  was  naturally  distasteful  to  the 
Guises  and  abhorrent  to  Philip  II  of  Spain.  In  1585 
a  definite  league  was  formed  between  Henry,  duke  of  Guise,  and 
the  Spanish  king,  whereby  the  latter  undertook  by  military 
force  to  aid  the  former's  family  in  seizing  the  throne :  French 
politics  in  that  event  would  be  controlled  by  Spain,  and  Philip 
would  secure  valuable  assistance  in  crushing  the  Netherlands 
and  conquering  England.^  The  immediate  outcome  of  the 
agreement  was  the  war  of  the  three  Henries  —  Henry  III,  son 
of  Catherine  de'  Medici  and  king  of  France ;  Henry  of  Bourbon, 
king  of  Navarre  and  heir  to  the  French  throne ;  and  Henry, 
duke  of  Guise,  with  the  foreign  support  of  Philip  II  of  Spain. 
Henry  of  Guise  represented  the  extreme  Catholic  party  ;  Henry 
of  Navarre,  the  Protestant  faction ;  and  Henry  of  France,  the 
CathoHc  moderates  —  the  Politiques  —  who  wanted  peace  and 

^  At  that  very  time,  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  cousin  of  Henry,  dul<,e  of  Guise,  was 
held  a  prisoner  in  England  by  Queen  Elizabeth.     See  above,  p.  99. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  105 

were  willing  to  grant  a  measure  of  toleration.  The  last  two  were 
upholders  of  French  independence  against  the  encroachments  of 
Spain. 

The  king  was  speedily  gotten  into  the  power  of  the  Guises, 
but  little  headway  was  made  by  the  extreme  Cathohcs  against 
Henry  of  Navarre,  who  now  received  domestic  aid  from  the 
Politiques  and  foreign  assistance  from  Queen  Elizabeth  of  Eng- 
land and  who  benefited  by  the  continued  misfortunes  of  Philip  II. 
At  no  time  was  the  Spanish  king  able  to  devote  his  whole  atten- 
tion and  energy  to  the  French  war.  At  length  in  158S  Henry 
III  caused  Henry  of  Guise  to  be  assassinated.  The  king  never 
had  a  real  chance  to  prove  whether  he  could  become  a  national 
leader  in  expelling  the  foreigners  and  putting  an  end  to  civil  war, 
for  he  himself  was  assassinated  in  1589.  With  his  d}'ing  breath 
he  designated  the  king  of  Navarre  as  his  successor. 

Henry  of  Navarre,  the  first  of  the  Bourbon  family  upon  the 
throne  of  France,  took  the  title  of  Henry  IV  (1589-1610).^  For 
four  years  after  his  accession,  Henry  IV  was  obliged  to  Henry  of 
continue  the  civil  war,  but  his  abjuration  of  Protes-  Navarre 
tantism  and  his  acceptance  of  Cathohcism  in  1593  removed  the 
chief  source  of  opposition  to  him  within  France,  and  the  rebellion 
speedily  collapsed.  With  the  Spanish  king,  however,  the  struggle 
dragged  on  until  the  treaty  of  Vervins,  which  in  the  last  year 
of  Philip's  life  practically  confirmed  the  peace  of  Cateau- 
Cambresis. 

Thus  Philip  II  had  failed  to  conquer  or  to  dismember  France. 
He  had  been  unable  to  harmonize  French  policies  with  those  of 
his  own  in  the  Netherlands  or  in  England.     Despite 
his  endeavors,  the  French  crown  was  now^  on  the  head  Spain  and 
of  one  of  his  enemies,  who,  if  something  of  a  renegade  ^^®  °^ 

_,  ,  .  °  °,     ,    France 

Protestant  himself,  had  nevertheless  granted  qualified 
toleration  to  heretics.  Nor  were  these  failures  of  Philip's  politi- 
cal and  religious  policies  mere  negative  results  to  France.  The 
unsuccessful  interference  of  the  Spanish  king  contributed  to  the 
assurance  of  French  independence,  patriotism,  and  solidarity. 
France,  not  Spain,  was  to  be  the  centgr  of  European  pohtics 
during  the  succeeding  century. 

^  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  Henry  of  Navarre,  like  Henry  of  Guise  and  Henry  of 
France,  died  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin. 


io6  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

In  concluding  this  chapter,  a  large  section  of  which  has  been 
Philip  II  devoted  to  an  account  of  the  manifold  failures  of  Philip 
and  the  II,  a  word  should  be  added  about  one  exploit  that 
brought  glory  to  the  Spanish  monarch.  It  was  he 
who  administered  the  first  effective  check  to  the  advancing 
Ottoman  Turks. 

After  the  death  of  Suleiman  the  Magnificent  (1566),  the 
Turks  continued  to  strengthen  their  hold  upon  Hungary  and  to 
fit  out  piratical  expeditions  in  the  Mediterranean.  The  latter 
repeatedly  ravaged  portions  of  Sicily,  southern  Italy,  and  even 
the  Balearic  Islands,  and  in  1570  an  Ottoman  fleet  captured 
Cyprus  from  the  Venetians.  Malta  and  Crete  remained  as  the 
only  Christian  outposts  in  the  Mediterranean.  In  this  extremity, 
a  league  was  formed  to  save  Italy.  Its  inspirer  and  preacher  was 
Pope  Pius  V,  but  Genoa  and  Venice  furnished  the  bulk  of  the 
fleet,  while  Philip  II  supplied  the  necessary  additional  ships 
and  the  commander-in-chief  in  the  person  of  his  half-brother, 
Don  John  of  Austria.  The  expedition,  which  comprised  208 
vessels,  met  the  Ottoman  fleet  of  273  ships  in  the  Gulf  of 
Lepanto,  off  the  coast  of  Greece,  on  7  October,  1571,  and 
inflicted  upon  it  a  crushing  defeat.  The  Turkish  warships  were 
almost  all  sunk  or  driven  ashore ;  it  is  estimated  that  8000 
Turks  lost  their  lives.  When  news  of  the  victory  reached  Rome, 
Pope  Pius  intoned  the  famous  verse,  "There  was  a  man  sent 
from  God  whose  name  was  John." 

The  battle  of  Lepanto  was  of  great  political  importance.     It 

gave  the  naval  power  of  the  Mohammedans  a  blow  from  which  it 

never  recovered  and  ended  their  aggressive  warfare  in 

Lepanto 

the  Mediterranean.  It  was,  in  reality,  the  last  Crusade  : 
Philip  II  was  in  his  most  becoming  role  as  champion  of  church 
and  pope;  hardly  a  noble  family  in  Spain  or  Italy  was  not 
represented  in  the  battle ;  volunteers  came  from  all  parts  of  the 
world ;  the  celebrated  Spanish  writer  Cervantes  lost  an  arm  at 
Lepanto.  Western  Europe  was  henceforth  to  be  comparatively 
free  from  the  Ottoman  peril. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 


107 


THE   HABSBURG   FAMILY  IN  THE   SIXTEENTH   AND 
SEVENTEENTH   CENTURIES 


Frederick  III  (Habsburg), 

Holy  Roman  Emperor 

(1440-1493) 

Maximiliak  I  (Habsburg) 

Holy  Roman  Emperor 

(1493-IS19) 


.  Mary,  dau.  of 
Charles  the  Bold, 
Duke  of 
Burgundy 


Ferdinand 

the  Catholic, 

King  of  Aragon 

and  Sicily 

(1479-IS16) 


m.  Isabella, 
I      Queen  of 
Castile 
(1474-1506) 


Philip- 
d.  1506 


-Joanna,    Catherine   m.  Henry  VIII 


J-  I5SS     of  Aragon 


Charles  (Habsburg), 

I  of  Spain.  V  of  the  Empire, 

Holy  Roman  Emperor 

(1519-1558) 


m.  Anne,  dau.  of 
Ladislas,  King 
of  Bohemia  and 
Hungary 


Margaret 

m.  (i)  Alessandro 

de'  Medici, 

(2)  Famese, 

Duke  of  Parma 


Don  John 
of 

Austria, 
d. 1578 


Ferdinand  I — 
(Habsburg), 
Holy  Roman 
Emperor 

(1558-1564) 

I  I                             I                           I 

Phelip  II,  Marj' — m. — Maximilian  II,  Charles, 

King  gf  King  of  Hungarj'  Duke  of 

Spain,  and  Bohemia,  Austria, 

Sicily,  etc.  Holy  Roman     Styria,  etc. 

(1555-1598)  Emperor 

(1564-1576) 


(Tudor), 

King  of 

England 

(1509-1547) 


I 

Mary 

(Tudor), 

Queen  of 

England 

(1553-1558), 

m.  Philip  II, 

King  of  Spain 


Alexander  Farnese,    Philip  III,         Anne      Rudolph,  Matthias, 


Duke  of  Parma 
(1545-1592) 


King  of       m.  Philip  II      Holy      Holy  Roman 
Spain  of  Spain       Roman       Emperor 

(1598-1621)  Emperor   (1612-1619) 

I  (1576-1612) 


,— Margaret 
m.  (4) 
Philip  III 
of  Spain 


Ferdinand  II, 
Holy  Roman 

Emperor 
(1619-1637) 


Philip  IV  (Habsburg), 
King  of  Spain 
(1621-1665) 


1 
Anne  m.  Louis  XIII  (Bourbon), 
King  of  France 
(1610-1643) 


CH.4RLES  II,    Maria  Theresa  m.  Louis  XIV  (Bourbon), 
King  of  Spain  I  King  of  France 

(1665-1700),  Y  (1643-1715) 

the  last  of  the  whence  descended 

Spanish  Habsburgs       the  Bourbon  sovereigns 
of  Spain  1700-19 — 


Ferdinand  III, 
Holy  Roman 

Emperor 
(1637-1657) 
I 
Leopold  I, 
Holy  Roman 

Emperor 
(165S-1705) 

I 

whence  descended 
the  Habsburg  sov- 
ereigns of  Austria 
1705-19— 


[o8 


HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 


■Jo  a 


■g  — ^-^ 
^^       UP 


-■q  3 


H 
O 
U 

O 


gx 


E3-2  o 


<  3  O  «J 


3  2 


G« 


^^ 

o'S'So" 

s^l  .s 

^sa-s-^ 

Char' 
(Guis 
Cardi 
of 
Lorra 

- 
" 

-'S"?, 

^'l^l^ 

^     -a 

—  £-q--o  = 

y  Si  a^  f/^  <iJ^o  — 

rw52| 

-rf   3-S   3^   „ 

— ji  a 

3 

o 

*--. 

^      oo 

-2  s" 

^.O-o'S 

•Ss-^ 

—  SS'?'" 

-o.S  o 

^£U 

■n      c! 

••=4 

^    c!          O 

u'-J    w 

Iz; 

Q 

o 

IZ 

> 

pq 

< 

Z 

P^ 

t3 

1^" 

o 

1— 1 

m 

< 

Pi 

^ 

c/: 

CD 

h— 1 
O 

O 

t=  e  s 


i^o  o 


-ffi3 

^  o 


C  > 


w 

HH 

o 

m 

J 

H 

1— 1 

3 

P4 

>  o 

^^ 

ij 

M- 

a 

o 

"^  1 

M 

.S    ws 

o ;:? 

T3 

c3  ^n 

-a 

c/l   fl 

u 

n   =^ 

13 

5^ 

jS> 

S^ 

t 

3T3 

-^-~    K^ 

C/5_t3 

35 

a^-^^^-g^ 

a 

i^Tl 

X   .       '5 

II  (Val 
nee  (IS 
ine  de' 
1 

w^  bug  r 

.^   c3   >-« 

W                            M 

>*  i-J  oj 

o           ^ 

"§^■5 

M     -           '°        n 

Ly 


FOUNDATIONS   OF  MODERN   EUROPE  109 

THE   HOUSE   OF   TUDOR:     SOVEREIGxNS   OF   ENGLAND   (1485-1603) 

Henry  VII 

(1485-1509) 


I 1  \  I 

Arthur,  Henry  VIII  Margaret  Mary  m.  (i)  Louis  XII,  of  France, 

d.  1502  (1509-1547)  m.  James  IV,  d.  iSLS 

I  of  Scotland  (2)  Charles  Brandon, 

I 1 1  I  Duke  of  Suffolk 

Mary  Eliz.\beth  Edward  VI    James  V,  of  Scotland 

(155.5-1558),     (1558-1603)  (1547-1553)  I 

m.  Philip  II  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots 

of  Spain  | 

James  VI  of  Scotland, 

and  I  of  England 

(1603-1625) 


ADDITIONAL   READING 

General,  with  Special  Reference  to  the  Habsburg  Territories.     A.  H. 

Johnson,  Europe  in  the  Sixteenth  Century,  I4g4-i§g8  (1897),  ch.  iii-ix, 
a  political  summary ;  Mary  A.  HoUings,  Renaissance  and  Reformation, 
1453-1660  (1910),  ch.  vi,  ix,  X,  a  brief  outline;  E.  M.  Hulme,  Renaissance 
and  Reformation,  2d  ed.  (191 5),  ch.  x,  xiv,  xxiv-xxviii,  a  brief  and  frag- 
mentary account ;  T.  H.  Dyer,  A  History  of  Modern  Europe,  3d  ed.,  rev. 
by  Arthur  Hassall  (1901),  ch.  ix,  xi-xxvii,  old  but  containing  a  multitude 
of  political  facts;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  II  (1904),  ch.  ii,  iii, 
vii,  viii,  and  Vol.  Ill  (1905),  ch.  xv,  v ;  History  of  All  Nations,  Vol.  XI  and 
Vol.  XII,  ch.  i-iii,  by  the  German  scholar  on  the  period,  JNIartin  Philippson ; 
Histoire  generate.  Vol.  IV,  ch.  iii,  ix,  \'ol.  V,  ch.  ii-v,  xv.  Of  the  Emperor 
Charles  V  the  old  standard  English  biography  by  William  Robertson,  still 
readable,  has  now  been  largely  superseded  by  that  of  Edward  Armstrong, 
2  vols.  (1902) ;  two  important  German  works  on  Charles  V  are  Baumgarten, 
Geschichte  Karls  V,  3  vols.  (1885-18^2),  and  Konrad  Habler,  Geschichte 
Spanicns  untcr  den  Habsburgen,  Vol.  I  (1907).  Of  Philip  II  the  best  brief 
biography  in  English  is  Martin  Hume's  (1902),  which  should  be  consulted, 
if  possible,  in  connection  with  Charles  Bratli,  Philippe  II,  Roi  d'Espagne  : 
Etude  snr  sa  vie  et  son  caractere,  new  ed.  (1912),  an  attempt  to  counteract 
traditional  Protestant  bias  against  the  Spanish  monarch.  Also  see  M.  A.  S. 
Hume,  Spain,  its  Greatness  and  Decay,  i4-g-iYS8  (1898),  ch.  i-vi,  for  a 
general  account  of  the  reigns  of  Philip  H  and  Philip  III ;  and  Paul  Herre, 
Papsttum  und  Papstwahl  im  Zeitalter  Philipps  II  (1907)  for  a  sympathetic 
treatment  of  Philip's  relations  with  the  papacy.  For  a  proper  understand- 
ing of  sixteenth-century  politics  the  student  should  read  that  all-important 
book,  Machiavelli's  Prince,  the  most  convenient  English  edition  of  which 
is  in  "  Everyman's  Library."  For  political  events  in  the  Germanies  in  the 
sixteenth  century :  E.  F.  Henderson,  A  Short  History  of  Germany,  2  vols. 
in  I  (1902);  Sidney  ^\^litman,  Austria  (1899);  Gustav  Wolf,  Deutsche 
Geschichte  im  Zeitalter  der  Gegenrcformation  (1899),  an  elaborate  study; 
Franz  Krones,  Handbuch  der  Geschichte  Oesterreichs  von  der  dltesten  Zeit, 
Vol.  Ill  (1877),  Book  XIII. 


no  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

France  in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  A.  J.  Grant,  The  French  Monarchy, 
1483-178Q  (1900),  Vol.  I,  ch.  iii-v;  G.  W.  Kitchin,  A  History  oj  France, 
4th  ed.  (1894-1899),  Vol.  II,  Book  II,  ch.  iv-v,  and  Book  III;  Cambridge 
Modern  History,  Vol.  Ill  (1905),  ch.  i;  Ernest  Lavisse  (editor),  Hisloirc  de 
France,  Vol.  v'(i903),  Books  III,  IV,  VII,  VIII,  and  Vol.  VI  (1904),  Books 
I-III,  the  most  thorough  and  best  treatment;  Edward  Armstrong,  The 
French  Wars  of  Religion  (1892) ;  J.  W.  Thompson,  The  Wars  of  Religion 
in  France:  the  Huguenots,  Catherine  de  Medici  and  Philip  II  of  Spain, 
1559-1576  (1909),  contaming  several  suggestions  on  the  economic  condi- 
tions of  the  time ;  A.  W.  Whitehead,  Caspar d  de  Coligny,  Admiral  of  France 
(1904) ;  C.  C.  Jackson,  The  Last  of  the  Valois,  2  vols.  (1888),  and,  by  the 
same  author,  The  First  of  the  Bourbons,  2  vols.  (1890) ;  Lucien  Romier, 
Les  origines  politiqucs  des  Guerrcs  de  Religion,  Vol.  I,  Henri  II  et  V Italic, 
1547-1555  (1913),  scholarly  and  authoritative,  stressing  economic  rather 
than  political  aspects;  Louis  Batiffol,  The  Century  of  the  Renaissance  in 
France,  Eng.  trans,  by  Elsie  F.  Buckley  (1916),  covering  the  years  1483- 
1610,  largely  pohtical. 

England  in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  Brief  accounts :  A.  L.  Cross,  His- 
tory of  England  and  Greater  Britain  (1914),  ch.  xix-xxvi ;  E.  P.  Cheyney,  A 
Short  History  of  England  (1904),  ch.  xii,  xiii ;  Cambridge  Modern  History, 
Vol.  Ill  (1905),  ch.  viii-xi ;  J.  F.  Bright,  History  of  England,  5  vols.  (1884- 
1904),  Vol.  II,  Personal  Monarchy,  1485-1688  (in  part) ;  A.  D.  Innes,  His- 
tory of  England  and  the  British  Empire,  4  vols.  (1914),  Vol.  II,  ch.  iii-viii ; 
J.  R.  Seeley,  Growth  of  British  Policy,  2  vols.  (1895),  a  brilliant  work,  of 
which  Vol.  I,  Part  I,  affords  an  able  account  of  the  policy  of  Elizabeth. 
More  detailed  studies :  J.  S.  Brewer,  The  Reign  of  Henry  VIII  from  his 
Accession  to  the  Death  of  Wolsey,  2  vols.  (1884) ;  H.  A.  L.  Fisher,  Political 
History  of  England,  1485-1547  (1906),  ch.  vi-xviii ;  A.  F.  PoUard,  History 
of  England  from  the  Accession  of  Edward  VI  to  the  Death  of  Elizabeth  (1910) ; 
J.  A.  Froude,  History  of  England  from  the  Fall  of  Wolsey  to  the  Defeat  of  the 
Spanish  Armada,  12  vols.  (1870-1872),  a  masterpiece  of  prose-style  but 
strongly  biased  in  favor  of  Henry  VIII  and  against  anything  connected 
with  the  Roman  Church;  E.  P.  Cheyney,  A  History  of  England  from  the 
Defeat  of  the  Armada  to  the  Death  of  Elizabeth,  Vol.  I  (1914),  scholarly  and 
well-written.  Also  see  Andrew  Lang,  A  History  of  Scotland,  2d  ed. 
(1901-1907),  Vols.  I  and  II;  and  P.  H.  Brown,  History  of  Scotland  (1899- 
1900),  Vols.  I  and  II.  Important  biographies:  A.  F.  PoUard,  Henry  VIII 
(1905),  'the  result  of  much  research  and  distinctly  favorable  to  Henry; 
E.  L.  Taunton,  Thomas  Wolsey,  Legate  and  Reformer  (1902),  the  careful 
estimate  of  a  Catholic  scholar ;  Mandell  Creighton,  Cardinal  Wolsey  (1888), 
a  good  clear  account,  rather  favorable  to  the  cardinal ;  J.  M.  Stone,  Mary 
the  First,  Queen  of  England  (1901),  a  sympathetic  biography  of  Mary  Tudor  ; 
Mandell  Creighton,  Queen  Elizabeth  (1909),  the  best  biography  of  the 
Virgin  Queen  ;  E.  S.  Beesly,  Queen  Elizabeth  (1892),  another  good  biography. 
For  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  see  the  histories  of  Scotland  mentioned  above  and 
also  Andrew  Lang,   The  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart  (1901) ;    P.  H.  Brown, 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  iii 

Scotland  in  the  Time  of  Qiiccii  Mary  (1904);  and  R.  S.  Rail,  Mary  Queen 
of  Scots,  2d  ed.  (1899),  containing  important  source-material  concerning 
Mary.  Walter  Walsh,  The  Jesuits  in  Great  Britain  (1903),  emphasizes 
their  pohtical  opposition  to  Elizabeth.  Martin  Hume,  Two  English  Queens 
and  Philip  (1908),  valuable  for  the  English  relations  of  Philip  II.  For 
English  maritime  development  see  David  Hannay,  A  Short  History  of  the 
English  Navy  (1898) ;  J.  S.  Corbett,  Drake  and  the  Tudor  Navy,  2  vols. 
(1898),  and,  by  the  same  author,  The  Successors  of  Drake  (1900) ;  J.  A. 
Froude,  English  Scamoi  in  the  Si.vlernth  Century  (1895). 

The  Netherlands  in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  A  good  brief  account  is 
that  of  George  Edmundson  in  the  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  Ill 
(1905),  ch.  vi,  vii,  and  Vol.  II  (1904),  ch.  xix.  For  the  Dutch  Netherlands 
the  great  standard  work  is  now  P.  J.  Blok,  History  of  the  People  of  the 
Netherlands,  trans,  in  large  part  by  O.  A.  Bierstadt,  and  for  the  Belgian 
Netherlands  a  corresponding  function  is  performed  in  French  by  Henri 
Pirenne.  J.  L.  Motley,  Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  t,  vols,  (many  editions), 
is  brilliantly  written  and  still  famous,  but  it  is  based  on  an  inadequate  study 
of  the  sources  and  is  marred  throughout  by  bitter  prejudice  against  the 
Spaniards  and  in  favor  of  the  Protestant  Dutch  :  it  is  now  completely  super- 
seded by  the  works  of  Blok  and  Pirenne.  Admirable  accounts  of  William 
the  Silent  are  the  two-volume  biography  by  Ruth  Putnam  and  the  volume 
by  the  same  author  in  the  "  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series  (191 1) ;  the 
most  detailed  study  is  the  German  work  of  Felix  Rachfahl. 

The  Turks  in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  Cambridge  Modern  History, 
Vol.  Ill  (1905),  ch.  iv ;  A.  H.  Lybyer,  The  Government  of  the  Ottoman  Em- 
pire in  the  Time  of  Suleiman  the  Magnificent  (1913)  ;  Stanley  Lane-Poole, 
Turkey  (1889)  in  the  "Story  of  the  Nations"  Series;  Nicolae  Jorga, 
Geschichte  des  osmanischen  Reiches;  Leopold  von  Ranke,  Die  Osmanen  mid 
die  spanische  Monarchic  im  sechzehnten  und  siebzehnten  Jahrhundert;  Joseph 
von  Hammer,  Geschichte  des  osmanischen  Reiches,  2d  ed.,  4  vols.  (1834- 
183s),  Vol.  II,  a  famous  German  work,  which  has  been  translated  into 
French. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   PROTESTANT   REVOLT   AND   THE   CATHOLIC   REFOR- 
MATION 

THE    CATHOLIC    CHURCH    AT    THE    OPENING    OF    THE 
SIXTEENTH   CENTURY 

Four  hundred  years  ago,  practically  all  people  who  lived  in 
central  or  western  Europe  called  themselves  "Christians"  and 
_j._  in  common  recognized  allegiance  to  an  ecclesiastical 

between  body  which  was  called  the  "Catholic  Church." 
Religious       'pj^g    CathoHc    Church   in    i^oo   differed   from    any 

Bodies  m  .  .  .  ,  . 

1500  and       present-day    rehgious    society    in    the    following    re- 

Thosein  spects :  (i)  Every  child  was  born  into  the  Church 
1900  ^  1      .    ,  .  1 

as  now  he  is  born  into  the  state ;    every  person  was 

expected  to  conform,  at  least  outwardly,  to  the  doctrines  and 
practices  of  the  Church ;  in  other  words  the  CathoKc  Church 
claimed  a  universal  membership.  (2)  The  Church  was  not 
supported  by  voluntary  contributions  as  now,  but  by  com- 
pulsory taxes ;  every  person  was  compelled  to  assist  in  defray- 
ing the  expenses  of  the  official  religion.  (3)  The  state  undertook 
to  enforce  obedience  on  the  part  of  its  subjects  to  the  Church ; 
a  person  attacking  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church  would 
be  liable  to  punishment  by  the  state,  and  this  held  true  in  Eng- 
land and  Germany  as  well  as  in  Spain  or  Italy. 

Then,  within  fifty  years,  between  1520  and  1570,  a  large 
number  of  Catholic  Christians,  particularly  in  Germany,  Scan- 
Rise  of  dinavia,  Scotland,  and  England,  and  a  smaller  num- 
Protestant-  ber  in  the  Low  Countries  and  in  France,  broke  off 
'^™  communion  with  the  ancient  Church  and  became 
known  as  Protestants.  Before  the  year  1500  there  were  no 
Protestants ;  since  the  sixteenth  century,  the  dominant  Chris- 
tianity of  western  and  central  Europe  has  been  divided  into 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  113 

two  parts  —  Catholic  and  Protestant.  It  is  important  that 
we  should  know  something  of  the  origin  and  significance  of 
this  division,  because  the  Christian  rehgion  and  the  Christian 
Church  had  long  played  very  great  roles  in  the  evolution  of 
European  civilization  and  because  ecclesiastical  and  religious 
questions  have  continued,  since  the  division,  to  deserve  general 
attention. 

Let  us  understand  clearly  what  was  meant  in  the  year  1500 
by  the  expression  "Catholic  Christianity."  It  embraced  a 
belief  in  certain  religious  precepts  which  it  was  be-  "  cathoUc " 
lieved  Jesus  of  Nazareth  had  taught  at  the  beginning  Christianity 
of  the  Christian  era,  the  inculcation  of  certain  moral  teachings 
which  were  likewise  derived  from  Jesus,  and  a  definite  organiza- 
tion —  the  Church  —  founded,  it  was  assumed,  by  Jesus  in 
order  to  teach  and  practice,  till  the  end  of  time.  His  religious 
and  moral  doctrines.  By  means  of  the  Church,  man  would 
know  best  how  to  order  his  life  in  this  world  and  how  to  pre- 
pare his  soul  for  everlasting  happiness  in  the  world  to  come. 

The  Catholic  Church  was,  therefore,  a  vast  human  society, 
beheved  to  be  of  divine  foundation  and  sanction,  and  with  a 
mission  greater  and  more  lofty  than  that  of  any  other  ^j^g 
organization.     Church  and  state  had  each  its  own  Catholic 
sphere,   but  the   Church   had  insisted  for  centuries 
that  it  was  greater  and  more  necessary  than  the  state.     The 
members  of  the  Church  were  the  sum-total  of  Christian  be- 
Hevers  who  had  been  baptized  —  practically  the  population  of 
western  and   central   Europe  —  and  its   officers   constituted   a 
regular  governing  hierarchy. 

At  the  head  of  the  hierarchy  was  the  bishop  of  Rome,  styled 
the  pope  or  sovereign  pontiff,  who  from  the  first  had  probably 
enjoyed  a  leading  position  in  the  Church  as  the  sue-  Head  of 
cessor  of  St.  Peter,  prince  of  the  apostles,  and  whose  *^®  church 
claims  to  be  the  divinely  appointed  chief  bishop  had  been  gener- 
ally recognized  throughout  western  Europe  as  early  as  the  third 
century  —  perhaps  earlier.  The  bishop  of  Rome  was  elected 
for  life  by  a  group  of  clergymen,  called  cardinals,  who  originally 
had  been  in  direct  charge  of  the  parish  churches  in  the  city  of 
Rome,  but  who  later  were  frequently  selected  by  the  pope  from 
various  countries  because  they  were  distinguished  churchmen. 


114  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

The  pope  chose  the  cardinals ;  the  cardinals  elected  the  pope. 
Part  of  the  cardinals  resided  in  Rome,  and  in  conjunction  with 
a  host  of  clerks,  translators,  lawyers,  and  special  officials,  con- 
stituted the  Curia,  or  papal  court,  for  the  conduct  of  general 
church  business. 

For  the  local  administration  of  church  affairs,  the  Catholic 
world  was  divided  under  the  pope  into  several  territorial  sub- 
divisions,    (i)   The  patriarchates  were  under  patri- 
Adminis-       archs  who  had  their  sees  ^  in  such  ancient  Christian 
trationof       centers   as   Rome,   Jerusalem,   Alexandria,    Antioch, 

the  Church  ,     ^  .  ,  /    n    rr^i  •  ^^    • 

and  Constantmople.  (2)  Ihe  provmces  were  divi- 
sions of  the  patriarchates  and  usually  centered  in  the  most 
important  cities,  such  as  Milan,  Florence,  Cologne,  Vienna, 
Paris,  Seville,  Lisbon,  Canterbury,  York ;  and  the  head  of  each 
was  styled  a  metropolitan  or  archbishop.  (3)  The  diocese  — 
the  most  essential  unit  of  local  administration  —  was  a  sub- 
division of  the  province,  commonly  a  city  or  a  town,  with  a 
certain  amount  of  surrounding  country,  under  the  immediate 
supervision  of  a  bishop.  (4)  Smaller  divisions,  particularly 
parishes,  were  to  be  found  in  every  diocese,  embracing  a  village 
or  a  section  of  a  city,  and  each  parish  had  its  church  building 
and  its  priest.  Thus  the  Catholic  Church  possessed  a  veritable 
army  of  officials  from  pope  and  cardinals  down  through  patri- 
archs, archbishops,  and  bishops,  to  the  parish  priests  and  their 
"  Secular "  assistants,  the  deacons.  This  hierarchy,  because  it 
Clergy  labored  in  the  world  {saculo),  was  called  the  "secular 

clergy." 

Another  variety  of  clergy  —  the  "regulars"  —  supplemented 
the  work  of  the  seculars.  The  regulars  were  monks,^  that  is, 
"Regular"  Christians  who  lived  by  a  special  rule  (regula),  who 
Clergy  renounced  the  world,  took  vows  of  chastity,  poverty, 

and  obedience,  and  strove  to  imitate  the  life  of  Christ  as  liter- 
ally as  possible.  The  regular  clergy  were  organized  under  their 
own    abbots,    priors,    provincials,    or    generals,    being    usually 

'  "See,"  so  called  from  the  Latin  sedes,  referring  to  their  seat  or  chair  of  office. 
Similarly  our  word  "cathedral"  is  derived  from  the  Latin  cathedra,  the  official 
chair  which  the  bishop  occupies  in  his  own  church. 

^  The  word  "monk"  is  api^lied,  of  course,  only  to  men;  women  who  followed 
similar  rules  are  commonly  styled  nuns. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF  MODERN   EUROPE  115 

exempt  from  secular  jurisdiction,  except  that  of  the  pope. 
The  regulars  were  the  great  missionaries  of  the  Church,  and 
many  charitable  and  educational  institutions  were  in  their 
hands.  Among  the  various  orders  of  monks  which  had  grown 
up  in  the  course  of  time,  the  following  should  be  enumerated  : 
(i)  The  monks  who  lived  in  fixed  abodes,  tilled  the  soil,  copied 
manuscripts,  and  conducted  local  schools.  Most  of  the  monks 
of  this  kind  followed  a  rule,  or  society  by-laws,  which  had  been 
prepared  by  the  celebrated  St.  Benedict  about  the  year  525  : 
they  were  called  therefore  Benedictines.  (2)  The  monks  who 
organized  crusades,  often  bore  arms  themselves,  and  tended 
the  holy  places  connected  with  incidents  in  the  hfe  of  Christ : 
such  orders  were  the  Knights  Templars,  the  Knights  Hospitalers 
of  St.  John  and  of  Malta,  and  the  Teutonic  Knights  who  sub- 
sequently undertook  the  conversion  of  the  Slavs.  (3)  The 
monks  who  were  called  the  begging  friars  or  mendicants  because 
they  had  no  fixed  abode  but  wandered  from  place  to  place, 
preaching  to  the  common  people  and  dependent  for  their  own 
Hving  upon  alms.  These  orders  came  into  prominence  in  the 
thirteenth  century  and  included,  among  others,  the  Franciscan, 
whose  lovable  founder  Saint  Francis  of  Assisi  had  urged  humihty 
and  love  of  the  poor  as  its  distinguishing  characteristics,  and  the 
Dominican,  or  Order  of  the  Preachers,  devoted  by  the  precept 
of  its  practical  founder.  Saint  Dominic,  to  missionary  zeal. 
All  the  mendicant  orders,  as  well  as  the  Benedictine  monasteries, 
became  famous  in  the  history  of  education,  and  the  majority  of 
the  distinguished  scholars  of  the  middle  ages  were  monks.  It 
was  not  uncommon,  moreover,  for  regulars  to  enter  the  secular 
hierarchy  and  thus  become  parish  priests  or  bishops,  or  even 
popes. 

The  clergy  —  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  —  constituted,  in 
popular  belief,  the  divinely  ordained  administration  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  The  legislative  authority  in  the  church 
Church  similarly  was  vested  in  the  pope  and  in  the  Councils 
general  councils,  neither  of  which,  however,  could  set  aside  a 
law  of  God,  as  affirmed  in  the  gospels,  or  establish  a  doctrine 
at  variance  with  the  tradition  of  the  early  Christian  writers. 
The  general  councils  were  assemblies  of  prelates  of  the  Catholic 
world,  and  there  had  been  considerable  discussion  as  to  the 


ii6  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

relative  authority  of  their  decrees  and  the  decisions  and  direc- 
tions of  the  pope.^  General  church  councils  held  in  eastern 
Europe  from  the  fourth  to  the  ninth  centuries  had  issued  im- 
portant decrees  or  canons  defining  Christian  dogmas  and  es- 
tablishing ecclesiastical  discipline,  which  had  been  subsequently 
ratified  and  promulgated  by  the  pope  as  by  other  bishops 
and  by  the  emperors ;  and  several  councils  had  been  held  in 
western  Europe  from  the  twelfth  to  the  fourteenth  centuries 
under  the  direct  supervision  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  all  the 
canons  of  which  had  been  enacted  in  accordance  with  his  wishes. 
But  early  in  the  fifteenth  century  a  movement  was  inaugurated 
by  certain  Catholic  bishops  and  scholars  in  favor  of  making  the 
councils  superior  to  the  pope  and  a  regular  source  of  supreme 
"  Conciiiar  legislation  for  the  Church.  In  this  way,  the  councils 
Movement"  gf  Constance  (1414-1418)  and  Basel  (1431  ff.)  had 
endeavored  to  introduce  representative,  if  not  democratic, 
government  into  the  Church.  The  popes,  however,  objected 
to  this  conciiiar  movement  and  managed  to  have  it  condemned 
by  the  Council  of  Ferrara-Florence  (1438-1442).  By  the  year 
1512  the  papal  theory  had  triumphed  and  Catholics  generally 
recognized  again  that  the  government  of  the  Church  was  es- 
sentially monarchical.  The  laws  of  the  Catholic  Church  were 
known  as  canons,  and,  of  several  codes  of  canon  law  which  had 
been  prepared,  that  of  a  monk  named  Gratian,  compiled  in  the 
twelfth  century,  was  the  most  widely  used. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  summarize  the  claims  and  preroga- 
tives of  the  bishop  of  Rome  or  pope,     (i)  He  was  the- supreme 
The  Pope       lawgiver.     He  could  issue  decrees  of  his  own,  which 
and  his         might  not  be  set  aside  by  any  other  person.     No 
^^^'^^  council   might   enact   canons  without   his   approval. 

From  any  law,  other  than  divine,  he  might  dispense  persons. 
(2)  He  was  the  supreme  judge  in  Christendom.  He  claimed 
that  appeals  might  be  taken  from  decisions  in  foreign  courts 
to  his  own  Curia,  as  court  of  last  resort.  He  himself  frequently 
acted  ,as  arbitrator,  as,  for  example,  in  the  famous  dispute 
between  Spain  and  Portugal  concerning  the  boundaries  of  their 
newly  discovered   possessions.     (3)    He  was   the  supreme    ad- 

*  Papal  documents  have  been  called  by  various  names,  such  as  decretals,  bulls, 
or  encyclicals. 


FOUNDATIONS  OF   MODERN   EUROPE  117 

ministrator.  He  claimed  the  right  to  supervise  the  general 
business  of  the  whole  Church.  No  archbishop  might  perform 
the  functions  of  his  office  until  he  received  his  insignia  —  the 
pallium  — ■  from  the  pope.  No  bishop  might  be  canonically 
installed  until  his  election  had  been  confirmed  by  the  pope. 
The  pope  claimed  the  right  to  transfer  a  bishop  from  one  diocese 
to  another  and  to  settle  all  disputed  elections.  He  exercised 
immediate  control  over  the  regular  clergy  —  the  monks  and 
nuns.  He  sent  ambassadors,  styled  legates,  to  represent  him 
at  the  various  royal  courts  and  to  see  that  his  instructions  were 
obeyed.  (4)  He  insisted  upon  certain  temporal  rights,  as  dis- 
tinct from  his  directly  religious  prerogatives.  He  crowned  the 
Holy  Roman  Emperor.  He  might  depose  an  emperor  or  king 
and  release  a  ruler's  subjects  from  their  oath  of  allegiance.  He 
might  declare  null  and  void,  and  forbid  the  people  to  obey,  a 
law  of  any  state,  if  he  thought  it  was  injurious  to  the  interests 
of  the  Church.  He  was  temporal  ruler  of  the  city  of  Rome 
and  the  surrounding  papal  states,  and  over  those  territories  he 
exercised  a  power  similar  to  that  of  any  duke  or  king.  (5)  He 
claimed  financial  powers.  In  order  to  defray  the  enormous 
expenses  of  his  government,  he  charged  fees  for  certain  services 
at  Rome,  assessed  the  dioceses  throughout  the  Catholic  world, 
and  levied  a  small  tax  —  Peter's  Pence  —  upon  all  Christian 
householders. 

So  far  we  have  concerned  ourselves  with  the  organization  of 
the  Catholic  Church  —  its  membership,  its  officers,  the  clergy, 
secular  and  regular,  all  culminating  in  the  pope,  the  Purpose  of 
bishop  of  Rome.  But  why  did  this  great  institution  *^^  Church 
exist?  Why  was  it  loved,  venerated,  and  well  served?  The 
purpose  of  the  Church,  according  to  its  own  teaching,  was  to 
follow  the  instructions  of  its  Di\dne  Master,  Jesus  Christ,  in 
saving  souls.  Only  the  Church  might  interpret  those  instruc- 
tions ;  the  Church  alone  might  apply  the  means  of  salvation ; 
outside  the  Church  no  one  could  be  saved. ^     The  salvation  of 


^  Catholic  theologians  have  recognized,  however,  the  possibility  of  salvation  of 
persons  outside  the  visible  Church.  Thus,  the  catechism  of  Pope  Pius  X  says : 
"Whoever,  without  any  fault  of  his  own,  and  in  good  faith,  being  outside  the 
Church,  happens  to  have  been  baptized  or  to  have  at  least  an  implicit  desire  for 
baptism,  and,  furthermore,  has  been  sincere  in  seeking  to  find  the  truth,  and  has 


ii8  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

souls  for  eternity  was  thus  the  supreme  business  of  the 
Church. 

This  salvation  of  souls  involved  a  theology  and  a  sacramental 
system,  which  we  shall  proceed  to  explain.  Theology  was  the 
study  of  God.  It  sought  to  explain  how  and  why 
man  was  created,  what  were  his  actual  and  desirable 
relations  with  God,  what  would  be  the  fate  of  man  in  a  future 
life.  The  most  famous  theologians  of  the  Catholic  Church,  for 
example,  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  (d.  1274),  studied  carefully  the 
teachings  of  Christ,  the  Bible,  the  early  Christian  writings,  and 
the  decrees  of  popes  and  councils,  and  drew  therefrom  elaborate 
explanations  of  Christian  theology  —  the  dogmas  and  faith 
of  the  Catholic  Church. 

The  very  center  of  Catholic  theology  was  the  sacramental 
system,  for  that  was  the  means,  and  essentially  the  only  means, 
^j^g  of  saving  souls.     It  was,  therefore,  for  the  purpose  of 

Sacramental  the  sacramental  system  that  the  Church  and  its 
ystem  hierarchy  existed.  The  sacraments  were  believed  to 
have  been  instituted  by  Christ  Himself,  and  were  defined  as 
"outward  signs  instituted  by  Christ  to  give  grace."  The 
number  generally  accepted  was  seven :  baptism,  confirmation, 
holy  eucharist,  penance,  extreme  unction,  holy  orders,  and 
matrimony.  By  means  of  the  sacraments  the  Church  accom- 
panied the  faithful  throughout  life.  Baptism,  the  pouring  of 
water,  cleansed  the  child  from  original  sin  and  from  all  previous 
actual  sins,  and  made  him  a  Christian,  a  child  of  God,  and  an 
heir  of  heaven.  The  priest  was  the  ordinary  minister  of  baptism, 
but  in  case  of  necessity  any  one  who  had  the  use  of  reason  might 
baptize.  Confirmation,  conferred  usually  by  a  bishop  upon 
young  persons  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  and  the  anointing 
with  oil,  gave  them  the  Holy  Ghost  to  render  them  strong  and 
perfect  Christians  and  soldiers  of  Jesus  Christ.  Penance,  one 
of  the  most  important  sacraments,  was  intended  to  forgive  sins 
committed  after  baptism.  To  receive  the  sacrament  of  penance 
worthily  it  was  necessary  for  the  penitent  (i)  to  examine  his 
conscience,  (2)  to  have  sorrow  for  his  sins,  (3)  to  make  a  firm 

done  his  best  to  do  the  will  of  God,  such  an  one,  although  separated  from  the  body 
of  the  Church,  would  still  belong  to  her  soul,  and  therefore  be  in  the  way  of 
salvation." 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  119 

resolution  never  more  to  offend  God,  (4)  to  confess  his  mortal 
sins  orally  to  a  priest,  (5)  to  receive  absolution  from  the  priest, 
(6)  to  accept  the  particular  penance  —  visitation  of  churches, 
saying  of  certain  prayers,  or  almsgiving  —  which  the  priest 
might  enjoin.  The  holy  eucharist  was  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  the  consecration  of  bread  and  wine  by  priest  or 
bishop,  its  miraculous  transformation  (transubstantiation)  at  his 
word  into  the  very  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  and  its  reception 
by  the  faithful.  It  was  around  the  eucharist  that  the  elaborate 
ritual  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mass  developed,  that  fine  vestments 
and  candles  and  incense  and  flowers  were  used,  and  that  mag- 
nificent cathedrals  were  erected.  Extreme  unction  was  the 
anointing  at  the  hands  of  a  priest  of  the  Christian  who  was  in 
immediate  danger  of  death,  and  it  was  supposed  to  give  health 
and  strength  to  the  soul  and  sometimes  to  the  body.  By  means 
of  holy  orders,  —  the  special  imposition  of  hands  on  the  part 
of  a  bishop,  —  priests,  bishops,  and  other  ministers  of  the 
Church  were  ordained  and  received  the  power  and  grace  to 
perform  their  sacred  duties.  Matrimony  was  the  sacrament, 
held  to  be  indissoluble  by  human  power,  by  which  man  and 
woman  were  united  in  lawful  Christian  marriage. 

Of  the  seven  sacraments  it  will  be  noticed  that  two  — ■  bap- 
tism and  penance  —  dealt  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
that  two  —  holy  orders  and  matrimony  —  were  received  only 
by  certain  persons.  Three  —  baptism,  confirmation,  and  holy 
orders  —  could  be  received  by  a  Christian  only  once.  Two 
—  confirmation  and  holy  orders  —  required  the  ministry  of  a 
bishop ;  and  all  others,  except  baptism  and  possibly  matri- 
mony, required  the  ministry  of  at  least  a  priest.  The  priest- 
hood was,  therefore,  the  absolutely  indispensable  agent  of  the 
Church  in  the  administration  of  the  sacramental  system.  It 
was  the  priesthood  that  absolved  penitents  from  their  sins, 
wrought  the  great  daily  miracle  of  transubstantiation,  and 
offered  to  God  the  holy  sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  either  the  theology  or  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  they  existed  in  the  year 
1500,  had  been  precisely  the  same  throughout  the  Christian  era. 
While  educated  Cathohcs  insisted  that  Christ  was  indirectly  the 
source  of  all  faith  and  all  practice,  they  were  quite  willing  to 


I20  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

admit  that  external  changes  and  adaptations  of  institutions  to 

varying  conditions  had  taken  place.     Moreover,  it  must  not  be 

supposed    that    the    proud   eminence   to   which   the 

Various 

Objections     Catholic   Church  had  attained   by   1500   in   central 
to  the  ^j^([   western   Europe   had    been    won    easily   or    at 

that  time  was  readily  maintained.  Throughout 
the  whole  course  of  Christian  history  there  had  been  repeated 
objections  to  new  definitions  of  dogma  —  many  positively  re- 
fused to  accept  the  teaching  of  the  Church  as  divine  or  infallible 
—  and  there  had  been  Hkewise  a  good  deal  of  opposition  to  the 
temporal  claims  of  the  Church,  resulting  in  increasing  friction 
between  the  clergy  and  the  lay  rulers.  Thus  it  often  transpired 
that  the  kings  who  vied  with  one  another  in  recognizing  the 
spiritual  and  religious  headship  of  the  pope  and  in  burning 
heretics  who  denied  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  were 
the  very  kings  who  quarreled  with  the  pope  concerning  the 
latter's  civil  jurisdiction  and  directed  harsh  laws  against  its 
exercise. 

As  strong  national  monarchies  rose  in  western  Europe,  this 
friction  became  more  acute.     On  one  side  the  royal  power  was 

determined  to  exalt  the  state  and  to  bring  into  sub- 
Conflict  °  jection  to  it  not  only  the  nobles  and  common  people 
between  but  the  clcrgy  as  well ;  the  national  state  must  man- 
and^state       ^S'^  absolutely  every  temporal  affair.     On  the  other 

side,  the  clergy  stoutly  defended  the  special  powers 
that  they  had  long  enjoyed  in  various  states  and  which  they 
believed  to  be  rightly  theirs.  There  were  four  chief  sources  of 
conflict  between  the  temporal  and  spiritual  jurisdictions,  (i)  Ap- 
pointments of  bishops,  abbots,  and  other  high  church  officers. 
Inasmuch  as  these  were  usually  foremost  citizens  of  their  native 
kingdom,  holding  large  estates  and  actually  participating  in 
the  conduct  of  government,  the  kings  frequently  claimed  the 
right  to  dictate  their  election.  On  the  other  hand  the  popes 
insisted  upon  their  rights  in  the  matter  and  often  "reserved" 
to  themselves  the  appointment  to  certain  valuable  bishoprics. 
(2)  Taxation  of  land  and  other  property  of  the  clergy.  The 
clergy  insisted  that  by  right  they  were  exempt  from  taxation 
and  that  in  practice  they  had  not  been  taxed  since  the  first 
public  recognition  of  Christianity  in  the  fourth  century.     The 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  121 

kings  pointed  out  that  the  wealth  of  the  clergy  and  the  needs 
of  the  state  had  increased  along  parallel  lines,  that  the  clergy 
were  citizens  of  the  state  and  should  pay  a  just  share  for  its 
maintenance.  (3)  Ecclesiastical  courts.  For  several  centuries 
the  Church  had  maintained  its  own  courts  for  trying  clerical 
offenders  and  for  hearing  certain  cases,  which  nowadays  are 
heard  in  state  courts  —  probating  of  wills,  the  marriage  rela- 
tions, blasphemy,  etc.  From  these  local  church  courts,  the 
pope  insisted  that  appeals  might  be  taken  to  the  Roman  Curia. 
On  their  side,  the  kings  were  resolved  to  substitute  royal  justice 
for  that  of  both  feudal  and  ecclesiastical  courts  :  they  diminished, 
therefore,  the  privileges  of  the  local  church  courts  and  forbade 
the  taking  of  appeals  to  Rome.  (4)  How  far  might  the  pope, 
as  universally  acknowledged  head  of  the  Church,  interfere  in 
the  internal  affairs  of  particular  states  ?  While  the  pope  claimed 
to  be  the  sole  judge  of  his  own  rights  and  powers,  several  kings 
forbade  the  publication  of  papal  documents  within  their  states 
or  the  reception  of  papal  legates  unless  the  royal  assent  had  been 
vouchsafed. 

Gradually  the  national  monarchs  secured  at  least  a  partial 
control  over  episcopal  appointments,  and  in  both  England  and 
France  papal  jurisdiction  was  seriously  restricted  in 
other  ways.  In  England  the  power  of  the  ecclesiastical  Restrictions 
courts  had  been  reduced  ( 1 164) ;  no  property  might  be  p?  *^, 
bestowed  upon  the  Church  without  royal  permission 
(1279) ;  the  pope  might  not  make  provision  in  England  for  his 
personal  appointees  to  ofhce  (1351) ;  and  appeals  to  Rome  had 
been  forbidden  (1392).'  In  France  the  clergy  had  been  taxed 
early  in  the  fourteenth  century,  and  the  papacy,  which  had 
condemned  such  action,  had  been  humiliated  by  a  forced  tem- 
porary removal  from  Rome  to  Avignon,  where  it  was  controlled 
by  French  rulers  for  nearly  seventy  years  (1309-13  7  7) ;  and  in 
1438  the  French  king,  Charles  VII,  in  a  document,  styled  the 
Pragmatic  Sanction  of  Bourges,  solemnly  proclaimed  the  "liber- 
ties of  the  Galilean  Church,"  that  a  general  council  was  superior 
to  the  pope,  that  the  pope  might  not  interfere  in  episcopal  elec- 
tions, that  he  might  not  levy  taxes  on  French  dioceses.  The 
Pragmatic  Sanction  was  condemned  by  the  pope,  but  for  three- 

^  All  these  anti-papal  enactments  were  very  poorly  enforced. 


122  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

quarters  of  a  century  after  its  issuance  there  were  strained 
relations  between  the  Church  in  France  and  the  sovereign 
pontiff. 

Similar  conflicts  between  spiritual  and  temporal  jurisdictions 
were  common  to  all  Christian  states,  but  the  national  strength 
Political  ^^'^  ^^^^  patriotism  of  the  western  monarchies  caused 
Differences  them  to  proceed  further  than  any  other  state  in 
from^Re-  restricting  the  papal  privileges.  Despite  the  con- 
ligious  flict  over  temporal  affairs,  which  at  times  was  ex- 

1  erences  (>gg(jij^g}y  bitter,  the  kings  and  rulers  of  England 
and  France  never  appear  to  have  seriously  questioned  the 
religious  authority  of  the  Church  or  the  spiritual  supremacy  of 
the  pope.  Religiously,  the  Catholic  Church  seemed  in  1500 
to  hold  absolute  sway  over  all  central  and  western  Europe. 

Yet  this  very  religious  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church  had 

been  again  and  again  brought  into   question  and  repeatedly 

rejected.     Originally,  a  united  Christianity  had  con- 

Religious  •',  ».  i  ^  r   ■  1 

Opposition  qucred  western  Asia,  northern  Africa,  and  eastern 
to  CathoU-  Europe;  by  1500  nearly  all  these  wide  regions  were 
lost  to  Catholic  Christianity  as  that  phrase  was  under- 
stood in  western  Europe.  The  loss  was  due  to  (i)  the  devel- 
opment of  a  great  Christian  schism,  and  (2)  the  rise  of  a  new 
religion  —  Mohammedanism. 

Eastern  Europe  had  been  lost  through  an  ever-widening 
breach  in  Christian  practice  from  the  fifth  to  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury. The  Eastern  Church  used  the  Greek  language 
between^™  in  its  Hturgy ;  that  of  the  West  used  the  Latin  lan- 
the  East  guage.  The  former  remained  more  dependent  upon 
^gg|  ®  the  state ;  the  latter  grew  less  dependent.  Minor 
differences  of  doctrine  appeared.  And  the  Eastern 
Christians  thought  the  pope  was  usurping  unwarrantable  pre- 
rogatives, while  the  Western  Christians  accused  the  Oriental 
patriarchs  of  departing  from  their  earlier  loyalty  to  the  pope 
and  destroying  the  unity  of  Christendom.  Several  attempts 
had  been  made  to  reunite  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  West  and 
the  Orthodox  Church  of  the  East,  but  with  slight  success.  In 
1500,  the  Christians  of  Greece,  the  Balkan  peninsula,  and  Russia 
were  thought  to  be  outside  the  Catholic  Church  and  were  de- 
fined, therefore,  by  the  pope  as  schismatics. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  123 

Far  more  numerous  and  dangerous  to  Catholic  Christianity 
than  the  schismatic  Easterners  were  the  Mohammedans.  Mo- 
hammed himseh"  had  Hved  in  Arabia  in  the  early  part  Moham- 
of  the  seventh  century  and  had  taught  that  he  was  the  medamsm 
inspired  prophet  of  the  one  true  God.  In  a  celebrated  book, — 
the  Koran,  —  which  was  compiled  from  the  sayings  of  the 
prophet,  are  to  be  found  the  precepts  and  commandments  of 
the  Mohammedan  religion.  Mohammedanism  spread  rapidly  : 
within  a  hundred  years  of  its  founder's  death  it  had  conquered 
western  Asia  and  northern  Africa  and  had  gained  a  temporary 
foothold  in  Spain;  thenceforth  it  stretched  eastward  across 
Persia  and  Turkestan  into  India  and  southward  into  central 
Africa;  and  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries,  as  we 
have  seen,  it  possessed  itself  of  Constantinople,  the  Balkans, 
Greece,  and  part  of  Hungary,  and  threatened  Christendom  in 
the  Germanics  and  iii  the  Mediterranean. 

Even  in  western  Europe,  the  Catholic  Church  had  had  to  en- 
counter spasmodic  opposition  from  "  heretics,"  as  those  persons 
were  called  who,  although  baptized  as  Christians,  re-  Western 
fused  to  accept  all  the  dogmas  of  Catholic  Christianity.  Heresies 
Such  were  the  Arian  Christians,  who  in  early  times  had  been 
condemned  for  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
and  who  had  eventually  been  won  back  to  Catholicism  only  with 
the  greatest  efforts.  Then  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries 
the  Albigensian  heretics  in  southern  France  had  assailed  the  sacra- 
mental system  and  the  organization  of  the  Church  and  had  been 
suppressed  only  by  armed  force.  In  the  fourteenth  century,  John 
WycKffe  appeared  in  England  and  John  Hus  in  Bohemia,  both 
preaching  that  the  indi\'idual  Christian  needs  no  priestly  media- 
tion between  himself  and  God  and  that  the  very  sacraments  of 
the  Church,  however  desirable,  are  not  essentially  necessary  to 
salvation.  The  Lollards,  as  Wycliffe's  English  followers  were 
called,  were  speedily  extirpated  by  fire  and  sword,  through 
the  stern  orthodoxy  of  an  English  king,  but  the  Hussites  long 
defied  the  pope  and  sur\dvals  of  their  heresy  were  to  be  found 
in  1500. 

In  addition  to  these  heretics  and  the  Jews,^  many  so-called 

^  For  detailed  accounts  of  the  Jews  during  the  middle  ages  as  well  as  in  modern 
times,  see  the  Jeisnsh  Encyclopcedia,  ed.  by  Isidore  Singer,  12  vols.  (1901-1906). 


124  HISTORY   OF   MODERN    EUROPE 

skeptics  no  doubt  existed.  These  were  people  who  outwardly 
conformed  to  Catholicism  but  inwardly  doubted  and 
even  scoffed  at  the  very  foundations  of  Christianity. 
They  were  essentially  irreligious,  but  they  seem  to  have  suffered 
less  from  persecution  than  the  heretics.  Many  of  the  Italian 
humanists,  concerning  whom  we  shall  later  say  a  word,^  were 
in  the  fifteenth  century  more  or  less  avowed  skeptics. 

THE   PROTESTANT   REVOLT 

We  have  seen  in  the  preceding  pages  that  prior  to  1500  there 
had  been  many  conflicts  between  kings  and  popes  concerning 
A  Religious  their  respective  temporal  rights  and  likewise  there 
and  Political  had   been   serious   doubts   in   the   minds   of   various 

ovemen  people  as  to  the  authority  and  teachings  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  But  these  two  facts  —  political  and  re- 
ligious —  had  never  been  united  in  a  general  revolt  against 
the  Church  until  the  sixteenth  century.  Then  it  was  that 
Christians  of  Germany,  Scandinavia,  Scotland,  and  England, 
even  of  the  Low  Countries  and  France,  successfully  revolted 
against  the  papal  monarchy  and  set  up  establishments  of  their 
own,  usually  under  the  protection  of  their  lay  rulers,  which 
became  known  as  the  Protestant  churches.  The  movement  is 
called,  therefore,  the  Protestant  Revolt.  It  was  begun  and 
practically  completed  between  1520  and  1570. 

In  explaining  this  remarkable  and  sudden  break  with  the 
religious  and  ecclesiastical  development  of  a  thousand  years, 
_     .  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  its  causes  were  at  once 

Political  ,.    .       ,  .  ,  ,.     ,  T^    !•    •       n 

Causes  of      political,    economic,    and    religious.     Politically,    it 
Protestant     ^^^g  merely  an  accentuation  of  the  conflict  which  had 

Revolt  ,  T  •  .         .         .      ,  ,  , 

long  been  increasing  m  virulence  between  the  spirit- 
ual and  temporal  authorities.  It  cannot  be  stated  too  em- 
phatically that  the  Catholic  Church  during  many  centuries 
prior  to  the  sixteenth  had  been  not  only  a  religious  body,  like 
a  present-day  church,  but  also  a  vast  political  power  which 
readily  found  sources  of  friction  with  other  political  institutions. 
The  Catholic  Church,  as  we  have  seen,  had  its  own  elaborate 
organization  in  every  country  of  western  and  central  Europe ; 

^  Sec  below,  pp.  182  ff. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  125 

and  its  officials  —  pope,  bishops,  priests,  and  monks  —  denied 
allegiance  to  the  secular  government ;  the  Church  owned  many 
valuable  lands  and  estates,  which  normally  were  exempt  from 
taxation  and  virtually  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  lay  gov- 
ernment ;  the  Church  had  its  own  independent  and  compulsory 
income,  and  its  own  courts  to  try  its  own  officers  and  certain 
kinds  of  cases  for  every  one.  Such  political  jurisdiction  of  the 
Church  had  been  quite  needful  and  satisfactory  in  feudal  times 
—  from  the  hfth  to  the  twelfth  century,  let  us  say  —  when  the 
secular  governments  were  weak  and  the  Church  found  itself 
the  chief  unifying  force  in  Christendom,  the  veritable  heir  to 
the  universal  dominion  of  the  ancient  Roman  Empire. 

But  gradually  the  temporal  rulers  themselves  repressed  feudal- 
ism. Political  ambition  increased  in  laymen,  and  local  pride 
was  exalted  into  patriotism.  By  the  year  1200  was  begun 
the  growth  of  that  notable  idea  of  national  monarchy,  the  general 
outline  of  which  we  sketched  in  the  opening  chapter.  We 
there  indicated  that  at  the  commencement  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, England,  France,  Spain,  and  Portugal  had  become  strong 
states,  with  well-organized  lay  governments  under  powerful 
kings,  with  patriotic  populations,  and  with  well-developed, 
distinctive  languages  and  literatures.  The  one  thing  that 
seemed  to  be  needed  to  complete  this  national  sovereignty  was 
to  bring  the  Church  entirely  under  royal  control.  The  auto- 
cratic sovereigns  desired  to  enlist  the  wealth  and  influence  of 
the  Church  in  their  behalf ;  they  coveted  her  lands,  her  taxes, 
and  her  courts.  Although  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  and  the 
Germanics  were  not  yet  developed  as  strong  united  monarchies, 
many  of  their  patriotic  leaders  longed  for  such  a  development, 
worked  for  it,  and  believed  that  the  principal  obstacle  to  it  was 
the  great  Christian  Church  with  the  pope  at  its  head.  Viewed 
from  the  political  standpoint,  the  Protestant  Revolt  was  caused 
by  the  rise  of  national  feeling,  which  found  itself  in  natural 
conffict  with  the  older  cosmopolitan  or  catholic  idea  of  the 
Church.      It    was    nationalism    versus    Catholicism.  ^ 

.  T->         1      Economic 

Economically,  the  causes  of  the  Protestant  Revolt  causes  of 
were  twofold.     In  the  first  place,  the  Catholic  Church  Protestant 

.  Revolt 

had  grown  so  wealthy   that  many  people,   particu- 
larly kings  and  princes,  coveted  her  possessions.     In  the  second 


126  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

place,  financial  abuses  in  ecclesiastical  administration  bore 
heavily  upon  the  common  people  and  created  serious  scandal. 
Let  us  say  a  word  about  each  one  of  these  difficulties. 

At  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century,  many  bishops  and 
abbots  in  wealth  and  power  were  not  unlike  great  lay  lords : 
they  held  vast  fair  dominions  —  in  the  Germanics  a  third  of 
the  whole  country,  in  France  a  fifth,  etc.  —  and  they  were 
attended  by  armies  of  retainers.  Most  of  them  were  sons  of 
noblemen  who  had  had  them  consecrated  bishops  so  as  to  in- 
sure them  fine  positions.  Even  the  monks,  who  now  often 
lived  in  rich  monasteries  as  though  they  had  never  taken  vows 
of  poverty,  were  sometimes  of  noble  birth  and  quite  worldly  in 
their  lives.  The  large  estates  and  vast  revenues  of  Catholic 
ecclesiastics  were  thus  at  first  the  lure  and  then  the  prey  of  their 
royal  and  princely  neighbors.  The  latter  grew  quite  willing  to 
utilize  any  favorable  opportunity  which  might  enable  them 
to  confiscate  church  property  and  add  it  to  their  own  possessions. 
Later  such  confiscation  was  euphemistically  styled  "seculariza- 
tion." 

On  the  other  hand,  many  plain  people,  such  as  peasants  and 
artisans,  begrudged  the  numerous  and  burdensome  ecclesiastical 
taxes,  and  an  increasing  number  felt  that  they  were  not  getting 
the  worth  of  their  money.  There  was  universal  complaint, 
particularly  in  the  Germanics,  that  the  people  were  exploited 
by  the  Roman  Curia.  Each  ecclesiastic,  be  he  bishop,  abbot, 
or  priest,  had  right  to  a  benefice,  that  is,  to  the  revenue  of  a 
parcel  of  land  attached  to  his  post.  When  he  took  posses- 
sion of  a  benefice,  he  paid  the  pope  a  special  assessment, 
called  the  "annate,"  amounting  to  a  year's  income  —  which  of 
course  came  from  the  peasants  living  on  the  land.  The  pope 
likewise  "reserved"  to  himself  the  right  of  naming  the  holders 
of  certain  benefices :  these  he  gave  preferably  to  Italians  who 
drew  the  revenues  but  remained  in  their  own  country;  the 
people  thus  supported  foreign  prelates  in  luxury  and  sometimes 
paid  a  second  time  in  order  to  maintain  resident  ecclesiastics. 
The  archbishops  paid  enormous  sums  to  the  pope  for  their 
badges  of  office  {pallia).  Fat  fees  for  dispensations  or  for  court 
trials  found  their  way  across  the  Alps.  And  the  bulk  of  the 
burden  ultimately  rested  upon  the  backs  of  the  people.     At 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  127 

least  in  the  Germanies  the  idea  became  very  prevalent  that 
the  pope  and  Curia  were  really  robbing  honest  German  Chris- 
tians for  the  benefit  of  scandalously  immoral  Italians. 

There  were  certainly  grave  financial  abuses  in  church  govern- 
ment in  the  fifteenth  century  and  in  the  early  part  of  the  six- 
teenth. A  project  of  German  reform,  drawn  up  in  1438,  had 
declared :  ''It  is  a  shame  which  cries  to  heaven,  this  oppression 
of  tithes,  dues,  penalties,  excommunication,  and  tolls  of  the 
peasant,  on  whose  labor  all  men  depend  for  their  existence." 
An  "apocalyptic  pamphlet  of  1508  shows  on  its  cover  the  Church 
upside  down,  with  the  peasant  performing  the  services,  while 
the  priest  guides  the  plow  outside  and  a  monk  drives  the 
horses."  It  was,  in  fact,  in  the  Germanies  that  all  the  social 
classes  —  princes,  burghers,  knights,  and  peasants  —  had  special 
economic  grievances  against  the  Church,  and  in  many  places 
were  ready  to  combine  in  rejecting  papal  claims. 

This  emphasis  upon  the  political  and  particularly  upon  the 
economic  causes  need  not  belittle  the  strictly  religious  factor 
in  the  movement.  The  success  of  the  revolt  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  many  kings,  nobles,  and  commoners,  for  financial 
and  poHtical  advantages  to  themselves,  became  the  valuable 
allies  of  real  religious  reformers.  It  required  dogmatic  differ- 
ences as  well  as  social  grievances  to  destroy  the  dominion  of  the 
Church. 

Nearly  all  thoughtful  men  in  the  sixteenth  century  recognized 
the  existence  of  abuses  in  the  Catholic  Church.  The  scandals 
connected  with  the  papal  court  at  Rome  were  no-  Abuses  in 
torious  at  the  opening  of  the  century.  Several  of  the  CathoUc 
the  popes  lived  grossly  immoral  Hves.  Simony  (the 
sale  of  church  offices  for  money)  and  nepotism  (favoritism 
shown  by  a  pope  to  his  relatives)  were  not  rare.  The  most 
lucrative  ecclesiastical  positions  throughout  Europe  were  fre- 
quently conferi-ed  upon  Itahans  who  seldom  discharged  their 
duties.  One  person  might  be  made  bishop  of  several  foreign 
dioceses  and  yet  continue  to  reside  in  Rome.  Leo  X,  who  was 
pope  when  the  Protestant  Revolt  began,  and  son  of  Lorenzo 
de'  Medici,  surnamed  the  Magnificent,  had  been  ordained  to 
the  priesthood  at  the  age  of  seven,  named  cardinal  when  he 
was   thirteen,   and   speedily   loaded   with  a  multitude  of   rich 


128  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

benefices  and  preferments ;  this  same  pope,  by  his  munificence 
and  extravagance,  was  forced  to  resort  to  the  most  questionable 
means  for  raising  money :  he  created  many  new  offices  and 
shamelessly  sold  them ;  he  increased  the  revenue  from  in- 
dulgences, jubilees,  and  regular  taxation ;  he  pawned  palace 
furniture,  table  plate,  pontifical  jewels,  even  statues  of  the 
apostles ;  several  banking  firms  and  many  individual  creditors 
were  ruined  by  his  death. 

What  immorality  and  worldliness  prevailed  at  Rome  was  re- 
flected in  the  lives  of  many  lesser  churchmen.  To  one  of  the 
pop^s  of  the  fifteenth  century,  a  distinguished  cardinal 
Immorality  represented  the  disorders  of  the  clergy,  especially  in 
of  Clergy-  ^j-^g  Germanics.  "These  disorders,"  he  said,  "excite 
the  hatred  of  the  people  against  all  ecclesiastical  order ; 
if  it  is  not  corrected,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  laity,  following  the 
example  of  the  Hussites,  will  attack  the  clergy  as  they  now 
openly  menace  us  with  doing."  If  the  clergy  of  Germany  were 
not  reformed  promptly,  he  predicted  that  after  the  Bohemian 
heresy  was  crushed  another  would  speedily  arise  far  more  dan- 
gerous. "For  they  will  say,"  he  continued,  "that  the  clergy 
is  incorrigible  and  is  willing  to  apply  no  remedy  to  its  disorders. 
They  will  attack  us  when  they  no  longer  have  any  hope  of  our 
correction.  Men's  minds  are  waiting  for  what  shall  be  done ; 
it  seems  as  if  shortly  something  tragic  will  be  brought  forth. 
The  venom  which  they  have  against  us  is  becoming  evident ; 
soon  they  will  believe  they  are  making  a  sacrifice  agreeable  to 
God  by  maltreating  or  despoiling  the  ecclesiastics  as  people 
odious  to  God  and  man  and  immersed  to  the  utmost  in  evil. 
The  little  reverence  still  remaining  for  the  sacred  order  will  be 
destroyed.  Responsibility  for  all  these  disorders  will  be  charged 
upon  the  Roman  Curia,  which  will  be  regarded  as  the  cause  of 
all  these  evils  because  it  has  neglected  to  apply  the  necessary 
remedy."  To  many  other  thoughtful  persons,  a  moral  reforma- 
tion in  the  head  and  members  of  the  Church  seemed  vitally 
necessary. 

Complaints  against  the  evil  lives  of  the  clergy  as  well  as 
against  their  ignorance  and  credulity  were  echoed  by  most  of 
the  great  scholars  and  humanists  of  the  time.  The  patriotic 
knight  and  vagabond  scholar,  Ulrich  von  Hutten  (1488-1523), 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  129 

contributed  to  a  clever  series  of  satirical  ''Letters  of  Obscure 
Men,"  which  were  read  widely,  and  which  poked  fun  at  the 
lack  of  learning  among  the  monks  and  the  ease  with  uirich  von 
which    the   papal    court    emptied    German    pockets.   Huttenand 
Then,  too,  the  great  Erasmus  (1466-1536)  employed     '"^^"^^ 
all  his  wit  and  sarcasm,  in  his  celebrated  "Praise  of  Folly," 
against  the  theologians  and  monks,  complaining  that  the  foolish 
people   thought   that  religion  consisted   simply  in  pilgrimages, 
the  invocation  of  saints,  and  the  veneration  of  relics.     Erasmus 
would   have   suppressed   the  monasteries,   put   an   end   to   the 
domination  of  the  clergy,  and  swept  away  scandalous  abuses. 
He  wanted  Christianity  to  regain  its  early  spiritual  force,  and 
largely  for  that  purpose  he  published  in  15 16  the  Greek  text  of 
the   New  Testament  with  a  new  Latin   translation  and  with 
notes  which  mercilessly  flayed  hair-splitting  theologians. 

Thus  throughout  the  fifteenth  century  and  the  early  part 
of  the  sixteenth,  much  was  heard  from  scholars,  princes,  and 
people,  of  the  need  for  "reformation"  of  the  Church.  That 
did  not  signify  a  change  of  the  old  regulations  but  rather  their 
restoration  and  enforcement.  For  a  long  time  it  was  not  a 
question  of  abolishing  the  authority  of  the  pope,  or  altering 
ecclesiastical  organization,  or  changing  creeds.  It  was  merely 
a  question  of  reforming  the  lives  of  the  clergy  and  of  suppressing 
the  means  by  which  Italians  drew  money  from  other  nations. 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  however,  a  group  of  religious  leaders, 
such  as  Luther,  Cranmer,  Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  Knox,  went  much 
further  than  Erasmus  and  the  majority  of  the  human-  „  ,.  . 

xvcIiRious 

ists  had  gone:    they  applied  the  word  "reformation"   causes  of 
not  only  to  a  reform  in  morals  but  to  an  open  break  Protestant 
which  they  made  with  the  government  and  doctrines 
of  the  Catholic  Church.     The  new  theology,  which  these  re- 
formers championed,  was  derived  mainly  from  the  teachings  of 
such  heretics  as  Wycliffe  and  Hus  and  was  supposed  to  depend 
directly  upon  the  Bible  rather  than  upon  the   Church.     The 
religious  causes  of  the  Protestant  Revolt  accordingly  may  be 
summed  up  as :  first,  the  existence  of  abuses  within  the  Catholic 
Church ;    second,   the  attacks  of  distinguished  men  upon  the 
immorality  and  worldliness  of  the  Catholic  clergy ;    and  third, 
the  substitution  by  certain  religious  leaders  of  new  doctrines 


I30  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  practices,  which  were  presumed  to  have  been  authorized 
by  the  Bible,  but  which  were  at  variance  with  those  of  the 
medieval  Church. 

For  the  great  variety  of  reasons,  which  we  have  now  indicated, 

—  political,  economic,  and  religious,  —  the  peoples  of  northern 

Germany,  Scandinavia,  the  Dutch  Netherlands,  most 

Extent  of       of   Switzerland,   Scotland,   England,   and   a  part  of 

the  Protes-     France  and  of  Hungary,  separated   themselves,   be- 

tant  Revolt  ,  fc>     J '       i  ' 

tween  the  years  1520  and  1570,  from  the  great  re- 
ligious and  pohtical  body  which  had  been  known  historically 
for  over  a  thousand  years  as  the  Catholic  Christian  Church. 
The  name  ''Protestant"  was  first  applied  exclusively  to  the 
followers  of  Martin  Luther  among  the  German  princes  who 
in  1529  protested  against  an  attempt  of  the  Diet  of  Speyer  to 
prevent  the  introduction  of  religious  novelties,  but  subsequently 
the  word  passed  into  common  parlance  among  historians  and 
the  general  reading  public  as  betokening  all  Christians  who 
rejected  the  papal  supremacy  and  who  were  not  in  communion 
with  the  Orthodox  Church  of  eastern  Europe. 

Of  this  Protestant  Christianity  three  main  forms  appeared  in 
the  sixteenth  century  —  Lutheranism,  Calvinism,  and  Ang'Hcan- 
ism.  Concerning  the  origin  and  development  of  each  one  of 
these  major  forms,  a  brief  sketch  must  be  given. 

LUTHERANISM 

Lutheranism  takes  its  name  from  its  great  apostle,  Martin 
Luther.  Luther  was  born  in  Eisleben  in  Germany  in  1483  of  a 
Martin  poor    family    whose    ancestors    had    been    peasants. 

Luther  Martin  early  showed  himself  bold,  headstrong,  will- 

ing to  pit  his  own  opinions  against  those  of  the  world,  but  yet 
possessing  ability,  tact,  and  a  love  of  sound  knowledge.  Edu- 
cated at  the  university  of  Erfurt,  where  he  became  acquainted 
with  the  humanistic  movement,  young  Martin  entered  one  of 
the  mendicant  orders  —  the  Augustinian  —  in  1505  and  went  to 
live  in  a  monastery.  In  1508  Luther  was  sent  with  some  other 
monks  to  Wittenberg  to  assist  a  university  which  had  been  opened 
there  recently  by  the  elector  of  Saxony,  and  a  few  years  later 
was  appointed  professor  of  theology  in  the  institution. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  131 

While  lecturing  and  preaching  at  Wittenberg,  where  he  was 
very  popular,  Luther  developed  from  the  writings  of  St.  Paul 
and  St.  Augustine  an  important  doctrinal  conviction  «  justifi- 
which  differed  widely  from  the  faith  of  the  CathoHc  cation  by 
Church.     It  concerned  the  means  of  eternal  salva-     ^* 
tion.     The  Church  taught,  as  we  have  seen,  that  she  possessed 
the  sole  means,  and  that  every  Christian  must  perform  certain 
"good  works"  in  order  to  secure  salvation.     Luther,   on  the 
other  hand,  became  con\inced  that  man  was  incapable,  in  the 
sight  of  God,  of  any  good  works  whatsoever,  and  could  be  saved 
only  by  faith  in  God's  promises.     In  other  words,  this  monk 
placed  his  doctrine  of  " justilication  by  faith"  in  opposition  to 
the  generally  accepted  behef  in  "justification  by  faith  and  works." 

So  far,  Luther  certainly  had  no  thought  of  revolting  against 
the  authority  of  the  Church.  In  fact,  when  he  visited  Rome  in 
1 51 1,  it  was  as  a  pious  pilgrim  rather  than  as  a  carp-  Tetzei's 
ing  critic.  But  a  significant  event  in  the  year  151 7  "  Sale  "  of 
served  to  make  clear  a  wide  discrepancy  between  ^  ugences 
what  he  was  teaching  and  what  the  Church  taught.  That 
year  a  certain  papal  agent,  Tetzel  by  name,  was  disposing  of 
indulgences  in  the  great  archbishopric  of  Mainz.  An  indulgence, 
according  to  Catholic  theology,  was  a  remission  of  the  temporal 
punishment  in  purgatory  due  to  sin,  and  could  be  granted  only 
by  authority  of  the  Church ;  the  grant  of  indulgences  depended 
upon  the  contrition  and  confession  of  the  applicant,  and  often  at 
that  time  upon  money-payments.  Against  what  he  beHeved  was 
a  corruption  of  Christian  doctrine  and  a  swindling  of  the  poorer 
people,  Luther  protested  in  a  series  of  ninety-five  Theses  which 
he  posted  on  the  church  door  in  Wittenberg  (31  October,  15 17). 

The  Theses  had  been  written  in  Latin  for  the  educated  class 
but  they  were  now  speedily  translated  into  German  and  spread 
like  wildfire  among  all  classes  throughout  the  coun-  The  Ninety- 
try.  Luther's  underlying  principle  of  "salvation  five  Theses 
through  simple  faith"  was  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  theory  of 
"good  works,"  on  which  the  indulgences  rested.  "The  Chris- 
tian who  has  true  repentance,"  wrote  Luther,  "has  already 
received  pardon  from  God  altogether  apart  from  an  indulgence, 
and  does  not  need  one ;  Christ  demands  this  true  repentance 
from    every    one."     Luther's    attitude   provoked    spirited    dis- 


132  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

cussion  throughout  the  Germanies,  and  the  more  discussion, 
the  more  interest  and  excitement.  The  pope,  who  had  dis- 
missed the  subject  at  first  as  a  mere  squabble  among  the  monks, 
was  moved  at  length  to  summon  Luther  to  Rome  to  answer  for 
the  Theses,  but  the  elector  of  Saxony  intervened  and  prevailed 
upon  the  pope  not  to  press  the  matter. 

The  next  important  step  in  the  development  of  Luther's 
religious  ideas  was  a  debate  on  the  general  question  of  papal 
Disputation  supremacy,  held  at  Leipzig  in  15 19,  between  himself 
at  Leipzig,  and  an  eminent  CathoHc  apologist,  Johann  Eck. 
^^'^  Eck   skillfully  forced   Luther  to  admit  that  certain 

views  of  his,  especially  those  concerning  man's  direct  relation 
with  God,  without  the  mediation  of  the  Church,  were  the  same 
as  those  which  John  Hus  had  held  a  century  earlier  and  which 
had  been  condemned  both  by  the  pope  and  by  the  great  general 
council  of  Constance.  Luther  thereby  virtually  admitted  that 
a  general  council  as  well  as  a  pope  might  err.  For  him,  the 
divine  authority  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ceased  to  be. 

Separation  from  the  traditional  Church  was  the  only  course 
now  open  to  Luther  and  this  was  consummated  in  the  year  1520. 
In  a  series  of  three  bold  pamphlets,  he  vigorously 
of^Luther  ^^^  definitely  attacked  the  position  of  the  Church, 
from  the  In  the  first  —  An  Address  to  the  Nobility  of  the  Ger- 
Church*^  waw  Nation  — •  Luther  stated  that  there  was  nothing 
inherently  sacred  about  the  Christian  priesthood  and 
that  the  clergy  should  be  deprived  immediately  of  their  special 
privileges ;  he  urged  the  German  princes  to  free  their  country 
from  foreign  control  and  shrewdly  called  their  attention  to  the 
wealth  and  power  of  the  Church  which  they  might  justly  ap- 
propriate to  themselves.  In  the  second  —  On  the  Babylonian 
Captivity  of  the  Church  of  God  —  he  assailed  the  papacy  and  the 
whole  sacramental  system.  The  third  —  On  the  Freedom  of  a 
Christian  Man  —  contained  the  essence  of  Luther's  new  theology 
that  salvation  was  not  a  painful  progress  toward  a  goal  by  means 
of  sacraments  and  right  conduct  but  a  condition  "in  which 
man  found  himself  so  soon  as  he  despaired  absolutely  of  his  own 
efforts  and  threw  himself  on  God's  assurances";  the  author 
claimed  that  man's  utter  personal  dependence  on  God's  grace 
rendered  the  system  of  the  Church  superfluous. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  133 

In  the  midst  of  these  attacks  upon  the  Church,  the  pope  ex- 
communicated Luther,  and  in  the  following  year  (1521)  in- 
fluenced the  Diet  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  assembled  at 
Worms,  to  pronounce  him  an  outlaw.  But  the  rebel  calmly 
burnt  the  papal  bull  and  from  the  imperial  ban  he  was  protected 
by  the  elector  of  Saxony.  He  at  once  devoted  himself  to  making 
a  new  German  translation  of  the  Bible,  which  became  very 
popular  and  is  still  prized  as  a  monument  in  the  history  of 
German  hterature.^ 

Within  the  next  few  years  the  Lutheran  teachings  carried 
everything  before  them  throughout  the  northern  and  central 
Germanics.  Nor  are  the  reasons  for  Luther's  success  gpread  of 
in  defying  pope  and  emperor  and  for  the  rapid  ac-  Lutheran- 
ceptance-of  his  new  theology  hard  to  understand.  '^" 
The  movement  was  essentially  popular  and  national.  It  ap- 
pealed to  the  pious-minded  who  desired  a  simplification  of 
Christian  dogma  and  a  comprehensible  method  of  salvation. 
It  also  appealed  to  the  worldly  minded  who  longed  to  seize 
ecclesiastical  lands  and  revenues.  Above  all,  it  appealed  to  the 
patriots  who  were  tired  of  foreign  despotism  and  of  abuses  which 
they  traced  directly  to  the  Roman  Curia.  Then,  too,  the  Emperor 
Charles  V,  who  remained  a  loyal  Catholic,  was  too  immersed  in 
the  difhculties  of  foreign  war  and  in  the  manifold  administrative 
problems  of  his  huge  dominions  to  be  able  to  devote  much 
time  to  the  extirpation  of  heresy  in  the  Germanics.  Finally, 
the  character  of  Luther  contributed  to  effective  leadership  — 
he  was  tireless  in  flooding  the  country  with  pamphlets,  letters, 
and  inflammatory  diatribes,  tactful  in  keeping  his  party  together, 
and  always  bold  and  courageous.  Princes,  burghers,  artisans, 
and  peasants  joined  hands  in  espousing  the  new  cause. 

But  the  peasants  espoused  it  in  a  manner  altogether  too  logical 
and  too  violent  to  suit  Luther  or  the  desires  of  the  princes.  The 
German  peasants  had  grievances  against  the  old  order  compared 
with  which  those  of  the  knights  and  towns-folk  were  imaginary. 
For  at  least  a  century  several  causes  had  contributed  to  make 
their  lot  worse  and  worse.     While  their  taxes  and  other  burdens 

^  The  first  edition  of  the  Bible  in  German  had  been  printed  as  early  as  1466. 
At  least  eighteen  editions  in  German  (including  four  Low  German  versions)  had 
appeared  before  Luther  issued  his  German  New  Testament  in  1522. 


134  HISTORY    OF    MODERN   EUROPE 

were  increasing,  the  ability  of  the  emperor  to  protect  them  was 
decreasing;     they  were  plundered  by  every  class  in  the  com- 
munity, especially  by  the  higher  clergy.     Thus,  under 
and  the  the  influence  of  social  and  economic  conditions,  various 

German  uprisings  of  the  peasants  had  taken  place  during  the 
latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  century.  These  insurrec- 
tions became  almost  regular  in  the  southwestern  Germanics,  and 
were  called  Bimdschuhe,  a  shoe  fastened  upon  the  end  of  a  pole 
serving  as  a  standard  of  revolt.  When  Luther  urged  the  princes 
to  assail  the  ecclesiastics,  to  seize  church  lands,  and  to  put  an 
end  to  financial  abuses,  the  peasants  naturally  Hstened  to  his 
words  with  open  ears  and  proceeded  with  glad  hearts  to  apply 
his  advice  themselves. 

The  new  Lutheran  theology  may  have  been  too  refined  for 
the  peasants,  but  they  imagined  they  understood  its  purport. 
And  spurred  on  by  fanatics,  whom  the  religious  ferment  of  the 
times  produced  in  large  numbers,^  the  peasants  again  took  arms 
against  feudal  oppression.  That  the  peasants'  demands  were 
essentially  moderate  and  involved  no  more  than  is  granted 
everywhere  to-day  as  a  matter  of  course,  may  be  inferred  from 
their  declaration  of  principles,  the  Twelve  Articles,  among 
which  were :  abolition  of  serfdom,  free  right  of  fishing  and 
hunting,  payment  in  wages  for  services  rendered,  and  abolition 
of  arbitrary  punishment.  So  long  as  the  peasants  directed  their 
efforts  against  the  Catholic  ecclesiastics,  Luther  expressed 
sympathy  with  them,  but  when  the  revolt,  which  broke  out  in 
1524,  became  general  all  over  central  and  southern  Germany 
and  was  directed  not  only  against  the  CathoHc  clergy  but  also 
against  the  lay  lords,  —  many  of  whom  were  now  Lutheran,  — 
the  rehgious  leader  foresaw  a  grave  danger  to  his  new  rcUgion 
in   a   spHt   between   peasants   and   nobles.     Luther   ended   by 

^  Many  of  these  radical  religious  leaders  were  more  consistent  and  thorough- 
going than  Luther  in  maintaining  the  right  of  each  Christian  to  interpret  the 
Scriptures  for  himself.  Since  they  generally  refused  to  recognize  infant  baptism 
as  valid  and  insisted  that  baptism  should  be  administered  only  to  adults,  they 
were  subsequently  often  referred  to  as  "Anabaptists."  Many  of  the  "Anabap- 
tists "  condemned  oaths  and  capital  punishment ;  some  advocated  communism  of 
worldly  goods,  in  several  instances  c\-en  the  community  of  women.  Nicholas 
Storch  (d.  1525),  a  weaver,  and  Thomas  Miinzer  (d.  1525),  a  Lutheran  preacher, 
spread  these  doctrines  widely  among  the  peasants.  Luther  vehemently  denounced 
the  "  Anabaptists." 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  135 

taking  strong  sides  with  the  nobles  —  he  had  most  to  expect 
from  them.  He  was  shocked  by  the  excesses  of  the  revolt,  he 
said.  Insisting  upon  toleration  for  his  own  revolt,  he  con- 
demned the  peasants  to  most  horrible  fates  in  this  world  and 
in  the  world  hereafter.^  He  furiously  begged  the  princes  to  put 
down  the  insurrection.  "Whoever  can,  should  smite,  strangle, 
or  stab,  secretly  or  pubUcly  !  " 

The  Peasants'  Revolt  was  crushed  in  1525  with  utmost  cruelty. 
Probably  fifty  thousand  lost  their  lives  in  the  vain  effort.  The 
general  result  was  that  the  power  of  the  territorial  ^j^^ 
lords  became  greater  than  ever,  although  in  a  few  Peasants' 
cases,  particularly  in  the  Tyrol  and  in  Baden,  the  ^^° 
condition  of  the  peasants  was  slightly  improved.  Elsewhere, 
however,  this  was  not  the  case ;  and  the  German  peasants 
were  assigned  for  over  two  centuries  to  a  lot  worse  than  that 
of  almost  any  people  in  Europe.  Another  result  was  the  decHne 
of  Luther's  influence  among  the  peasantry  in  southern  and 
central  Germany.  They  turned  rapidly  from  one  who,  they 
beHeved,  had  betrayed  them.  On  the  other  hand,  many  Catholic 
princes,  who  had  been  wavering  in  their  rehgious  support,  now 
had  before  their  eyes  what  they  thought  was  an  object  lesson  of 
the  results  of  Luther's  appeal  to  revolution,  and  so  they  cast  their 
lot  decisively  with  the  ancient  Church.  The  Peasants'  Revolt 
registered  a  distinct  check  to  the  further  spread  of  Lutheranism. 

The  Diet  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  which  assembled  at  Speyer 
in  1526  saw  the  German  princes  divided  into  a  Lutheran  and  a 
Roman  Catholic  party,  but  left  the  legal  status  of  the  -q^^^^  ^f 
new  faith  still  in  doubt,  contenting  itself  with  the  vague  speyer, 
declaration  that  "  each  prince  should  so  conduct  him-  ^^^  '^^^^ 
self  as  he  could  answer  for  his  behavior  to  God  and  to  the 

^  Although  Luther  was  particularly  bitter  against  the  "  Anabaptist  "  exhorters, 
upon  whom  he  fastened  responsibility  for  the  Peasants'  Revolt,  and  although 
many  of  them  met  death  thereby,  the  "  Anabaptists  "  were  by  no  means  exter- 
minated. Largely  through  the  activity  of  a  certain  Melchior  Hofmann,  a  widely 
traveled  furrier,  "  Anabaptist  "  doctrines  were  disseminated  in  northern  Germany 
and  the  Netherlands.  From  1533  to  1535  they  reigned  supreme,  attended  by  much 
bloodshed  and  plenty  of  personal  license,  in  the  important  city  of  Miinster  in  western 
Germany.  Subsequently,  Carlstadt  (1480-1541),  an  early  associate  of  Luther, 
though  his  later  antagonist,  set  forth  Anabaptist  views  with  greater  modera- 
tion ;  and  in  course  of  time  the  sect  became  more  or  less  tinged  with  Calvinistic 
theology. 


136  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

emperor."  But  at  the  next  Diet,  held  at  the  same  place  in  1529, 
the  emperor  directed  that  the  edict  against  heretics  should  be 
The  Word  enforced  and  that  the  old  ecclesiastical  revenues 
"  Protes-  should  not  be  appropriated  for  the  new  worship, 
tant  rj.-^^    Lutheran   princes  drafted   a   legal   protest,   in 

which  they  declared  that  they  meant  to  abide  by  the  law  of 
1526.      From  this  protest  came  the  name  Protestant. 

The  next  year,  Luther's  great  friend,  Melancthon,  presented 
to  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  an  account  of  the  beliefs  of  the  German 
Confession  reformers,  which  later  became  known  as  the  Confes- 
of  Augs-  sion  of  Augsburg  and  constitutes  to  the  present  day 
urg,  1530  ^]^g  distinctive  creed  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  The 
emperor  was  still  unconvinced,  however,  of  the  truth  or  value 
of  the  reformed  doctrine,  and  declared  his  intention  of  ending 
the  heresy  by  force  of  arms. 

In  this  predicament,  the  Lutheran  princes  formed  a  league 
at  Schmalkald  for  mutual  protection  (1531)  ;  and  from  1546  to 
1555  a  desultory  civil  war  was  waged.  The  Protes- 
Peace  of  tants  received  some  assistance  from  the  French  king, 
Augsburg,  who,  for  poHtical  reasons,  was  bent  on  humiliating 
the  emperor.  The  end  of  the  religious  conflict  ap- 
peared to  have  been  reached  by  the  peace  of  Augsburg  (1555), 
which  contained  the  following  provisions :  (i)  Each  prince  was 
to  be  free  to  dictate  the  religion  of  his  subjects'  ;  (2)  All  church 
property  appropriated  by  the  Protestants  before  1552  was  to 
remain  in  their  hands ;  (3)  No  form  of  Protestantism  except 
Lutheranism  was  to  be  tolerated ;  (4)  Lutheran  subjects  of  ec- 
clesiastical states  were  not  to  be  obliged  to  renounce  their  faith  ; 
(5)  By  an  "ecclesiastical  reservation"  any  ecclesiastical  prince 
on  becoming  a  Protestant  was  to  give  up  his  see. 

Thus,  between  1520  and  1555,  Martin  Luther^  had  preached 
his  new  theology  at  variance  with  the  Catholic,  and  had  found 
Lutheran-  general  acceptance  for  it  throughout  the  northern 
ism  in  the  half  of  the  Germanies ;  its  creed  had  been  settled 
erm  m  ^^^  defined  in  1530,  and  its  official  toleration  had 
been  recognized  in  1555.  The  toleration  was  limited,  however, 
to  princes,  and  for  many  years  Lutheran  rulers  showed  them- 

^  Cuius  regio  eitis  rcligio.  ^  He  had  died  in  1546,  aged  62. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN    EUROPE  137 

selves  quite  as  intolerant  within  their  own  dominions  as  did  the 
Catholics. 

The  triumph  of  Lutheranism  in  the  Scandinavian  countries 
has  been  traced  largely  to  political  and  economic  causes.  When 
Martin  Luther  broke  with  the  CathoHc  Church,  Lutheran- 
Christian  II  (1513-1523)  was  reigning  as  elected  ism  in 
king  over  Denmark  and  Norway  and  had  recently 
conquered  Sweden  by  force  of  arms.  The  king  encountered 
political  difficulties  with  the  Church  although  he  maintained 
Catholic  worship  and  doctrine  and  apparently  recognized  the 
spiritual  supremacy  of  the  pope.  But  Christian  II  had  trouble 
with  most  of  his  subjects,  especially  the  Swedes,  who  were  con- 
scious of  separate  nationality  and  desirous  of  political  inde- 
pendence ;  and  the  king  eventually  lost  his  throne  in  a  general 
uprising.  The  definite  separation  of  Sweden  from  Denmark 
and  Norway  followed  immediately.  The  Swedes  chose  the 
celebrated  Gustavus  Vasa  (15  23-1 560)  as  their  king,  while  the 
Danish  and  Norwegian  crowns  passed  to  the  uncle  of  Christian  II, 
who  assumed  the  title  .of  Frederick  I  (1523-1533). 

In  Denmark,  King  Frederick  was  very  desirous  of  increasing 
the  royal  power,  and  the  subservient  ecclesiastical  organization 
which  Martin  Luther  was  advocating  seemed  to  him  _ 

,  .  rill  •  Denmark 

for  his  purposes  mfimtely  preferable  to  the  ancient 
self-willed  Church.  But  Frederick  realized  that  the  Catholic 
Church  was  deeply  rooted  in  the  alTections  of  his  people  and 
that  changes  would  have  to  be  effected  slowly  and  cautiously. 
He  therefore  collected  around  him  Lutheran  teachers  from 
Germany  and  made  his  court  the  center  of  the  propaganda  of 
the  new  doctrine,  and  so  well  was  the  work  of  the  new  teachers 
done  that  the  king  was  able  in  1527  to  put  the  two  religions  on 
an  equal  footing  before  the  law.  Upon  Frederick's  death  in 
1533,  the  Catholics  made  a  determined  effort  to  prevent  the 
accession  of  his  son.  Christian  III,  who  was  not  only  an  avowed 
Lutheran  but  was  known  to  stand  for  absolutist  principles  in 
government. 

The  popular  protest  against  royal  despotism  failed  in  Den- 
mark and  the  triumph  of  Christian  III  in  1536  sealed  the  fate 
of  Catholicism  in  that  country  and  in  Norway.  It  was  promptly 
enacted  that  the  Catholic  bishops  should  forfeit  their  temporal 


138  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  spiritual  authority  and  all  their  property  should  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  crown  "for  the  good  of  the  commonwealth."  After 
discussions  with  Luther  the  new  religion  was  definitely  or- 
ganized and  declared  the  state  religion  in  1537.  It  might  be 
added  that  Catholicism  died  with  difficulty  in  Denmark,  — 
many  peasants  as  well  as  high  churchmen  resented  the  changes, 
and  Helgesen,  the  foremost  Scandinavian  scholar  and  humanist 
of  the  time,  protested  vigorously  against  the  new  order.  But 
the  crown  was  growing  powerful,  and  the  crown  prevailed.  The 
enormous  increase  of  royal  revenue,  consequent  upon  the  con- 
fiscation of  the  property  of  the  Church,  enabled  the  king  to 
make  Denmark  the  leading  Scandinavian  country  throughout 
the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  the  first  quarter 
of  the  seventeenth.  In  time  national  patriotism  came  to  be 
intertwined  with  Lutheranism. 

In  Sweden  the  success  of  the  new  religion  was  due  to  the 
crown  quite  as  much  as  in  Denmark  and  Norway.  Gustavus 
„     ,  Vasa  had  obtained  the  Swedish  throne  through  the 

Sweden  .         t  mi 

efforts  of  a  nationalist  party,  but  there  was  still  a 
hostile  faction,  headed  by  the  chief  churchman,  the  archbishop 
of  Upsala,  who  favored  the  maintenance  of  the  union  with 
Denmark.  In  order  to  deprive  the  unionists  of  their  leader, 
Gustavus  begged  the  pope  to  remove  the  rebelHous  archbishop 
and  to  appoint  one  in  sympathy  with  the  nationalist  cause. 
This  the  pope  peremptorily  refused  to  do,  and  the  breach  with 
Rome  began.  Gustavus  succeeded  in  suppressing  the  insurrec- 
tion, and  then  persevered  in  introducing  Protestantism.  The 
introduction  was  very  gradual,  especially  among  the  peasantry, 
and  its  eventual  success  was  largely  the  result  of  the  work  of 
one  strong  man  assisted  by  a  subservient  parliament. 

At  first  Gustavus  maintained  Catholic  worship  and  doctrines, 
contenting  himself  with  the  suppression  of  the  monasteries,  the 
seizure  of  two-thirds  of  the  church  tithes,  and  the  circulation 
of  a  popular  Swedish  translation  of  the  New  Testament.  In 
1527  all  ecclesiastical  property  was  transferred  to  the  crown 
and  two  Catholic  bishops  were  cruelly  put  to  death.  Mean- 
while Lutheran  teachers  were  encouraged  to  take  up  their 
residence  in  Sweden  and  in  1531  the  first  Protestant  archbishop 
of  Upsala  was  chosen.     Thenceforth,  the  progress  of  Lutheran- 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN   EUROPE  139 

ism  was  more  rapid,  although  a  Catholic  reaction  was  threatened 
several  times  in  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The 
Confession  of  Augsburg  was  adopted  as  the  creed  of  the  Swedish 
Church  in  1593,  and  in  1604  Catholics  were  deprived  of  offices 
and  estates  and  banished  from  the  realm. 

CALVINISM 

The  second  general  type  of  Protestantism  which  appeared  in 
the  sixteenth  century  was  the  immediate  forerunner  of  the 
modern  Presbyterian,  Congregational,  and  Reformed  Churches 
and  at  one  time  or  another  considerably  affected  the  theology  of 
the  Episcopalians  and  Baptists  and  even  of  Lutherans.  Taken 
as  a  group,  it  is  usually  called  Calvinism.  Of  its  rise  and  spread, 
some  idea  may  be  gained  from  brief  accounts  of  the  lives  of 
two  of  its  great  apostles  —  CaKin  and  Knox.  But  first  it  will 
be  necessary  to  say  a  few  words  concerning  an  older  reformer, 
Zwingli  by  name,  who  prepared  the  way  for  Calvin's  work  in 
the  Swiss  cantons. 

Switzerland  comprised  in  the  sixteenth  century  some  thirteen 
cantons,  all  of  wliich  were  technically  under  the  suzerainty  of 
the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  but  constituted  in  practice  . 
so  many  independent  repubHcs,  bound  together  only 
by  a  number  of  protective  treaties.  To  the  town  of  Einsiedeln 
in  the  canton  of  Schwyz  came  Huldreich  Zwingli  in  the  year 
1 5 16  as  a  Catholic  priest.  Slightly  younger  than  Luther,  he 
was  well  born,  had  received  an  excellent  university  education 
in  Vienna  and  in  Basel,  and  had  now  been  in  holy  orders  about 
ten  years.  He  had  shown  for  some  time  more  interest  in  human- 
ism than  in  the  old-fashioned  theology,  but  hardly  any  one 
would  have  suspected  him  of  heresy,  for  it  was  well  known 
that  he  was  a  regular  pensioner  of  the  pope. 

Zwingli's  opposition  to  the  Roman  Church  seems  to  have  been 
based  at  first  largely  on  pohtical  grounds.  He  preached  elo- 
quently against  the  practice  of  hiring  out  Swiss  troops  to  foreign 
rulers  and  abused  the  Church  for  its  share  in  this  shameless 
traffic  in  soldiers.  Then  he  was  led  on  to  attack  all  manner 
of  abuses  in  ecclesiastical  organization,  but  it  was  not  until 
he  was  installed  in  15 18  as  preacher  in  the  great  cathedral  at 


I40  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Zurich  that  he  clearly  denied  papal  supremacy  and  proceeded 
to  proclaim  the  Scriptures  as  the  sole  guide  of  faith  and  morals. 
He  preached  against  fasting,  the  veneration  of  saints,  and  the 
celibacy  of  the  clergy.  Some  of  his  hearers  began  to  put  his 
teachings  into  practice :  church  edifices  were  profaned,  statues 
demolished,  windows  smashed,  and  relics  burned.  Zwingli 
himself  took  a  wife. 

In  1523  a  papal  appeal  to  Zurich  to  abandon  Zwingli  was 
answered  by  the  canton's  formal  declaration  of  independence 
Zwingiian  from  the  CathoHc  Church.  Henceforth  the  revolt 
Revolt  in  spread  rapidly  throughout  Switzerland,  except  in  the 
wi  zer  an  ^^^  forest  cantons,  the  very  heart  of  the  country, 
where  the  ancient  religion  was  still  deeply  intrenched.  Serious 
efforts  were  made  to  join  the  followers  of  ZwingU  with  those  of 
Luther,  and  thus  to  present  a  united  front  to  the  common 
enemy,  but  there  seemed  to  be  irreconcilable  differences  between 
Lutheranism  and  the  views  of  Zwingli.  The  latter,  which  were 
succinctly  expressed  in  sixty-seven  Theses  pubHshed  at  Zurich  in 
1523,  insisted  more  firmly  than  the  former  on  the  supreme  author- 
ity of  Scripture,  and  broke  more  thoroughly  and  radically  with  the 
traditions  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Zwingli  aimed  at  a  reforma- 
tion of  government  and  discipHne  as  well  as  of  theology,  and 
entertained  a  notion  of  an  ideal  state  in  which  the  democracy 
would  order  human  activities,  whether  pohtical  or  religious. 
Zwingli  differed  essentially  from  Luther  in  never  distrusting 
"the  people."  Perhaps  the  most  distinctive  mark  of  the  Swiss 
reformer's  theology  was  his  idea  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not 
a  miracle  but  simply  a  symbol  and  a  memorial. 

In  1 53 1  Zwingli  urged  the  Protestant  Swiss  to  convert  the 
live  forest  cantons  to  the  new  religion  by  force  of  arms.  In 
answer  to  his  entreaties,  civil  war  ensued,  but  the  Catholic 
mountaineers  won  a  great  victory  that  very  year  and  the  re- 
former himself  was  killed  A  truce  was  then  arranged,  the 
provisions  of  which  foreshadowed  the  rehgious  settlement  in 
the  Germanics  —  each  canton  was  to  be  free  to  determine 
its  own  reHgion.  Switzerland  has  remained  to  this  day  part 
CathoKc  and  part  Protestant. 

By  the  sudden  death  of  Zwingh,  Swiss  Protestantism  was  left 
without  a  leader,  but  not  for  long,  because  the  more  celebrated 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN  EUROPE      141 

Calvin  took  up  his  residence  in  Geneva  in  1536.  From  that 
time  until  his  death  in  1564  Calvin  was  the  center  of  a  move- 
ment which,  starting  from  these  small  Zwinglian  be-  ^  ,  . 

.  1-1  1    Calvin 

ginnings  among  the  Swiss  mountams,  speedily  spread 
over  more  countries  and  affected  more  people  than  did  Luther- 
anism.     In  Calvinism,  Catholicism  was  to  find  her  most  im- 
placable foe. 

John  Cah-in,  who,  next  to  Martin  Luther,  was  the  most 
conspicuous  Protestant  leader  of  the  sixteenth  century,  was  a 
Frenchman.  Born  of  middle-class  parentage  at  Noyon  in  the 
province  of  Picardy  in  1509,  he  was  intended  from  an  early 
age  for  an  ecclesiastical  career.  A  pension  from  the  Catholic 
Church  enabled  him  to  study  at  Paris,  where  he  displayed  an 
aptitude  for  theology  and  literature.  When  he  was  nineteen 
years  of  age,  however,  his  father  advised  him  to  abandon  the 
idea  of  entering  the  priesthood  in  favor  of  becoming  a  lawyer 
—  so  young  Cahdn  spent  several  years  studying  law. 

It  was  in  1529  that  Calvin  is  said  to  have  experienced  a  sudden 
"conversion."  Although  as  yet  there  had  been  no  organized 
revolt  in  France  against  the  Catholic  Church,  that  caivinin 
country,  like  many  others,  was  teeming  with  religious  France 
critics.  Thousands  of  Frenchmen  were  in  sympathy  with  any 
attempt  to  improve  the  Church  by  education,  by  purer  morals, 
or  by  better  preaching.  Lutheranism  was  winning  a  few  con- 
verts, and  various  evangelical  sects  were  appearing  in  divers 
places.  The  chief  problem  was  whether  reform  should  be 
sought  within  the  traditional  Church  or  by  rebellion  against  it. 
Calvin  beheved  that  his  conversion  was  a  divine  call  to  forsake 
Roman  Catholicism  and  to  become  the  apostle  of  a  purer  life. 
His  heart,  he  said,  was  "so  subdued  and  reduced  to  dociHty 
that  in  comparison  wdth  his  zeal  for  true  piety  he  regarded  all 
other  studies  with  indifference,  though  not  entirely  abandoning 
them.  Though  himself  a  beginner,  many  flocked  to  him  to 
learn  the  pure  doctrine,  and  he  began  to  seek  some  hiding-place 
and  means  of  withdrawal  from  people." 

His  search  for  a  hiding-place  was  quickened  by  the  announced 
determination  of  the  French  king,  Francis  I,  to  put  an  end  to 
religious  dissent  among  his  subjects.  Calvin  abruptly  left  France 
and  found  an  asylum  in  the  Swiss  town  of  Basel,  where  he  be- 


142  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

came  acquainted  at  first  hand  with  the  type  of  reformed  reli- 
gion which  Zwingh  had  propagated  and  where  he  proceeded  to 
"The  write  a  full  account  of  the  Protestant   position   as 

Institutes"  contrasted  with  the  CathoHc.  This  exposition,  —  The 
Institutes  of  the  Christian  Religion,  —  which  was  published  in 
1536,  was  dedicated  to  King  Francis  I  and  was  intended  to 
influence  him  in  favor  of  Protestantism. 

Although  the  book  failed  of  its  immediate  purpose,  it  speedily 
won  a  deservedly  great  reputation.  It  was  a  statement  of 
Calvin's  views,  borrowed  in  part  from  Zwingh,  and  in  part  from 
Luther  and  other  reformers.  It  was  orderly  and  concise,  and 
it  did  for  Protestant  theology  what  the  medieval  writers  had 
done  for  CathoHc  theology.  It  contained  the  germ  of  all  that 
subsequently  developed  as  Calvinism. 

It  seemed  for  some  time  as  if  the  Institutes  might  provide  a 
common  reUgious  rule  and  guide  for  all  Christians  who  rebelled 
Calvin  and  against  Rome.  But  Calvin,  in  mind  and  nature,  was 
Luther  quite   different   from   Luther.     The   latter   was   im- 

petuous, excitable,  but  very  human;  the  former  was  ascetic,- 
calm,  and  inhumanly  logical.  Then,  too,  Luther  was  quite 
wilhng  to  leave  everything  in  the  church  which  was  not  pro- 
hibited by  Scripture ;  Calvin  insisted  that  nothing  should 
remain  in  the  church  which  was  not  expressly  authorized  by 
Scripture.  The  Institutes  had  a  tremendous  influence  upon 
Protestantism  but  did  not  unite  the  followers  of  Calvin  and 
Luther.  Calvin's  book  seems  all  the  more  wonderful,  when 
it  is  recalled  that  it  was  written  when  the  author  was  but  twenty- 
six  years  of  age. 

In  1536  Calvin  went  to  Geneva,  which  was  then  in  the  throes 
of  a  revolution  at  once  poHtical  and  religious,  for  the  townsfolk 
Calvin  at  were  freeing  themselves  from  the  feudal  suzerainty  of 
Geneva  ^j^g  duke  of  Savoy  and  banishing  the  CathoHc  Church, 
whose  cause  the  duke  championed.  Calvin  aided  in  the  work 
and  was  rewarded  by  an  appointment  as  chief  pastor  and  preacher 
in  the  city.  This  position  he  continued  to  hold,  except  for  a 
brief  period  when  he  was  exiled,  until  his  death  in  1564.  It 
proved  to  be  a  commanding  position  not  only  in  ordering  the 
affairs  of  the  town,  but  also  in  giving  form  to  an  important 
branch  of  Protestant  Christianity. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  143 

The  government  of  Geneva  under  Calvin's  regime  was  a 
curious  theocracy  of  which  Calvin  himself  was  both  religious 
leader  and  political  "boss."  The  minister  of  the  reformed 
faith  became  God's  mouthpiece  upon  earth  and  inculcated  an 
unbending  puritanism  in  daily  life.  "No  more  festivals,  no 
more  jovial  reunions,  no  more  theaters  or  society ;  the  rigid 
monotony  of  an  austere  rule  weighed  upon  life.  A  poet  was 
decapitated  because  of  his  verses ;  Cahdn  wished  adultery  to 
be  punished  by  death  hke  heresy,  and  he  had  Michael  Servetus 
[a  celebrated  Spanish  reformer]  burned  for  not  entertaining  the 
same  opinions  as  himself  upon  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity." 

Under  Calvin's  theocratic  despotism,  Geneva  became  famous 
throughout  Europe  as  the  center  of  elaborate  Protestant  propa- 
ganda. Calvin,  who  set  the  example  of  stern  simpHcity  and 
relentless  actixdty,  was  sometimes  styled  the  Protestant  pope. 
He  not  only  preached  every  day,  wrote  numerous  theological 
treatises,  and  issued  a  French  translation  of  the  Bible,  but  he 
estabhshed  important  Protestant  schools  —  including  the  Uni- 
versity of  Geneva  —  which  attracted  students  from  distant 
lands,  and  he  conducted  a  correspondence  with  his  disciples 
and  would-be  reformers  in  all  points  of  Europe.  His  letters 
alone  would  fill  thirty  folio  volumes. 

Such  activities  account  for  the  almost  bewildering  diffusion 
of  Calvinism.  French,  Dutch,  Germans,  Scotch,  and  English 
flocked  to  Geneva  to  hear  Calvin  or  to  attend  his  Diffusion 
schools,  and  when  they  returned  to  their  own  coun-  °*  Calvinism 
tries  they  were  likely  to  be  so  many  glowing  sparks  ready  to 
start  mighty  conflagrations. 

CaKdnism  was  known  by  various  names  in  the  different  coun- 
tries which  it  entered.  On  the  continent  of  Europe  it  was 
called  the  Reformed  Faith,  and  in  France  its  followers  were 
styled  Huguenots ;  in  Scotland  it  became  Presbyterianism ; 
and  in  England,  Puritanism.  Its  essential  characteristics,  how- 
ever, remained  the  same  wherever  it  was  carried. 

We  have  already  noticed  how  Switzerland,  except  for  the 
five  forest  cantons,  had  been  converted  to  Protestantism  by 
the  preaching  of  ZwingH.     Calvin  was  ZwingH's  real  Calvinism 
theological  successor,  and  the  majority  of  the  Swiss,  in  Switzer- 
especially  those  in  the  urban  cantons  of  Zurich  and    ^°* 
Bern  as  well  as  of  Geneva,  cheerfully  accepted  Calvinism. 


144  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Calvinism  also  made  converts  in  France.  The  doctrines  and 
writings  of  Luther  had  there  encountered  small  success.  Many 
French  reformers  believed  that  greater  good  would 
in  France :  eventually  be  achieved  within  the  CathoKc  Church 
theHugue-  than  without.  There  appeared  to  be  fewer  abuses 
among  the  French  clergy  than  among  the  ecclesiastics 
of  northern  Europe,  for  they  possessed  less  wealth  and  power. 
The  French  sovereign  felt  less  prompted  to  lay  his  hand  upon 
the  dominions  of  the  clergy,  because  a  special  agreement  with 
the  pope  in  1516  bestowed  upon  the  king  the  nomination  of 
bishops  and  the  disposition  of  benefices.  For  these  reasons  the 
bulk  of  the  French  people  resisted  Protestantism  of  every  form 
and  remained  loyally  Catholic. 

What  progress  the  new  rehgion  made  in  France  was  due  to 
Calvin  rather  than  to  Luther.  Calvin,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a 
Frenchman  himself,  and  his  teachings  and  logic  appealed  to  a 
small  but  influential  body  of  his  fellow-countrymen.  A  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  lower  nobility,  a  few  merchants  and 
business  men,  and  many  magistrates  conformed  to  Calvinism 
openly ;  the  majority  of  great  lawyers  and  men  of  learning 
adhered  to  it  in  public  or  in  secret.  Probably  from  a  twentieth 
to  a  thirtieth  of  the  total  population  embraced  Calvinism. 
The  movement  was  essentially  confined  to  the  middle-class 
or  bourgeoisie,  and  almost  from  the  outset  it  acquired  a  pohtical 
as  well  as  a  religious  significance.  It  represented  among  the 
lesser  nobiHty  an  awakening  of  the  aristocratic  spirit  and  among 
the  middle-class  a  reaction  against  the  growing  power  of  the 
king.  The  financial  and  moneyed  interests  of  the  country  were 
largely  attracted  to  French  Calvinism.  The  Huguenots,  as 
the  French  Calvinists  were  called,  were  particularly  strong  in 
the  law  courts  and  in  the  Estates-General  or  parHament,  and 
these  had  been  the  main  checks  upon  royal  despotism. 

The  Huguenots  were  involved  in  sanguinary  civil  and  re- 
ligious wars  which  raged  in  France  throughout  the  greater  part 
Edict  of  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  which  have  already  been 
Nantes  treated  in  their  appropriate  political  aspect.^     The 

outcome  was  the  settlement  accorded  by  King  Henry  IV  in 
the  famous  Edict  of  Nantes  (1598),  which  contained  the  follow- 

'  See  above,  pp.  loi  IT. 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN  EUROPE     145 

ing  provisions:  (i)  Private  worship  and  liberty  of  conscience 
were  allowed  to  the  Calvinists  throughout  France ;  (2)  Public 
Protestant  worship  might  be  held  in  200  enumerated  towns 
and  over  3000  castles  ;  (3)  A  financial  grant  was  made  to  Protes- 
tant schools,  and  the  publication  of  Calvinist  books  was  legalized ; 
(4)  Huguenots  received  full  civil  rights,  with  admission  to  all 
public  offices ;  (5)  Huguenots  were  granted  for  eight  years  the 
political  control  of  two  hundred  towns,  the  garrisons  of  which 
were  to  be  maintained  by  the  crown ;  and  (6)  Huguenots  were 
accorded  certain  judicial  privileges  and  the  right  of  holding 
religious  and  pohtical  assembUes.  For  nearly  a  hundred 
years  France  practiced  a  reUgious  toleration  which  was  al- 
most unique  among  European  nations,  and  it  was  Calvinists 
who  benefited. 

The  Netherlands  were  too  near  the  Germanics  not  to  be 
affected  by  the  Lutheran  revolt  against  the  CathoHc  Church. 
And  the  northern  or  Dutch  provinces  became  quite  Calvinism 
thoroughly  saturated  with  Lutheranism  and  also  with  in  the 
the  doctrines  of  various  radical  sects  that  from  time  ^  eran  s 
to  time  were  expelled  from  the  German  states.  The  Emperor 
Charles  V  tried  to  stamp  out  heresy  by  harsh  action  of  the 
Inquisition,  but  succeeded  only  in  changing  its  name  and  nature. 
Lutheranism  disappeared  from  the  Netherlands ;  but  in  its 
place  came  Calvinism,^  descending  from  Geneva  through  Alsace 
and  thence  down  the  Rhine,  or  entering  from  Great  Britain  by 
means  of  the  close  commercial  relations  existing  between  those 
countries.  While  the  southern  Netherlands  eventually  were 
recovered  for  Catholicism,  the  protracted  political  and  economic 
conflict  which  the  northern  Netherlands  waged  against  the 
Catholic  king  of  Spain  contributed  to  a  final  fixing  of  Calvinism 
as  the  national  religion  of  patriotic  Dutchmen.  Calvinism  in 
Holland  was  known  as  the  Dutch  Reformed  religion. 

We  have  already  noted  that  southern  Germany  had  rejected 
aristocratic  Lutheranism,  partially  at  least  because  of  Luther's 

^  Many  Anabaptist  refugees  from  Germany  had  already  sought  refuge  in  the 
Netherlands :  they  naturally  found  the  teachings  of  Zwingli  and  Calvin  more  radi- 
cal, and  therefore  more  appropriate  to  themselves,  than  the  teachings  of  Luther. 
This  fact  also  serves  to  explain  the  acceptance  of  Calvinism  in  regions  of  southern 
Germany  where  Lutheranism,  since  the  Peasants'  Revolt,  had  failed  to  take  root. 

L 


146  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

bitter  words  to  the  peasants.  Catholicism,  however,  was  not 
destined  to  have  complete  sway  in  those  regions,  for  democratic 
Calvinism  Calvinism  permeated  Wiirttemberg,  Baden,  and  the 
in  Southern  Rhenish  provinces,  and  the  Reformed  doctrines 
ermany  gained  numerous  converts  among  the  middle-class. 
The  growth  of  Calvinism  in  Germany  was  seriously  handi- 
capped by  the  religious  settlement  of  Augsburg  in  1555  which 
ofhcially  tolerated  only  Catholicism  and  Lutheranism.  It  was 
not  until  after  the  close  of  the  direful  Thirty  Years'  War  in  the 
seventeenth  century  that  German  Calvinists  received  formal 
recognition. 

Scotland,  like  every  other  European  country  in  the  early 
part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  had  been  a  place  of  protest  against 
^    ,    J        moral  and  financial  abuses  in  the  Catholic  Church, 

Scotland  .       .  ,        .  .         ' 

but  the  beginnings  of  ecclesiastical  rebellion  are  to  be 
traced  rather  to  political  causes.  The  kingdom  had  long  been 
a  prey  to  the  bitter  rivalry  of  great  noble  families,  and  the 
premature  death  of  James  V  (1542),  which  left  the  throne  to 
his  ill-fated  infant  daughter,  Mary  Stuart,  gave  free  rein  to  a 
feudal  reaction  against  the  crown.  In  general,  the  Catholic 
clergy  sided  with  the  royal  cause,  while  the  religious  reformers 
egged  on  the  nobles  to  champion  Protestantism  in  order  to 
deal  an  effective  blow  against  the  union  of  the  altar  and  the 
throne.  Thus  Cardinal  Beaton,  head  of  the  Catholic  Church 
in  Scotland,  ordered  numerous  executions  on  the  score  of  pro- 
tecting religion  and  the  authority  of  the  queen-regent ;  on  the 
other  hand  several  noblemen,  professing  the  new  theology, 
assassinated  the  cardinal  and  hung  his  body  on  the  battlements 
of  the  castle  of  St.  Andrews  (1546).  Such  was  the  general 
situation  in  Scotland  when  John  Knox  appeared  upon  the 
scene. 

Bom  of  peasant  parents  about  1515,  John  Knox  '  had  become 
a  Catholic  priest,  albeit  in  sympathy  with  many  of  the  revolu- 
tionary  ideas  which  were  entering  Scotland  from  the 
Continent  and  from  England.  In  1546  he  openly 
rejected  the  authority  of  the  Church  and  proceeded  to  preach 
"the  Gospel"  and  a  stern  puritanical  morality.  "Others 
snipped  the  branches,"  he  said,  "he  struck  at  the  root."     But 

1  John  Kno.K  (c.  1515-1572). 


FOUNDATIONS  OF   MODERN   EUROPE  147 

the  Catholic  court  was  able  to  banish  Knox  from  Scotland. 
After  romantic  imprisonment  in  France,  Knox  spent  a  few 
years  in  England,  preaching  an  extreme  puritanism,  holding  a 
chaplaincy  under  Edward  VI  (i 547-1 553),  and  exerting  his 
influence  to  insure  an  indelibly  Protestant  character  to  the 
AngHcan  Church.  Then  upon  the  accession  to  the  English 
throne  of  the  Catholic  Mary  Tudor,  Knox  betook  himself  to 
Geneva  where  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  Calvin  and  found 
himself  in  essential  agreement  with  the  teachings  of  the  French 
reformer. 

After  a  stay  of  some  five  years  on  the  Continent,  Knox  re- 
turned finally  to  Scotland  and  became  the  organizer  and  director 
of  the  "Lords  of  the  Congregation,"  a  league  of  the  Calvinism 
chief  Protestant  noblemen  for  purposes  of  religious  "^  Scotland 
propaganda  and  political  power.  In  1560  he  drew  up  the  creed 
and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  after  the  model  of 
Calvin's  church  at  Geneva ;  and  in  the  same  year  with  the 
support  of  the  "Lords  of  the  Congregation"  and  the  troops  of 
Queen  Elizabeth  of  England,  Knox  effected  a  political  and 
religious  revolution  in  Scotland.  The  queen-regent  was  im- 
prisoned and  the  subservient  parliament  aboHshed  the  papal 
supremacy  and  enacted  the  death  penalty  against  any  one 
who  should  even  attend  CathoHc  worship.  John  Knox  had 
carried  everything  before  him. 

Mary  Stuart,  during  her  brief  stay  in  Scotland  (1561-1567), 
tried  in  vain  to  stem  the  tide.  The  jealous  barons  would  brook 
no  increase  of  royal  authority.  The  austere  Knox  hounded 
the  girl-queen  in  public  sermons  and  fairly  flayed  her  character. 
The  queen's  downfall  and  subsequent  long  imprisonment  in 
England  finally  decided  the  ecclesiastical  future  of  Scotland. 
Except  in  a  few  fastnesses  in  the  northern  highlands,  where 
Catholicism  survived  among  the  clansmen,  the  whole  country 
was  committed  to  Calvinism. 

Calvinism  was  not  without  influence  in  England.     Introduced 
towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII,  it  gave  rise  to  a 
number   of   small   sects   which    troubled    the   king's  Calvinism 
Anglican  Church  almost  as  much  as  did  the  Roman  '"  England 
Catholics.     Under  Edward  VI  (i 547-1 553),  it  considerably  in- 
fluenced the  theology  of  the  Anghcan  Church  itself,  but  the 


148  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

moderate  policies  of  Elizabeth  (15 58-1 603)  tended  to  fix  an 
inseparable  gulf  between  Anglicans  and  Calvinists.  Thence- 
forth, Calvinism  lived  in  England,  in  the  forms  of  Presbyterian- 
ism,  Independency,^  and  Puritanism,  as  the  religion  largely  of 
the  commercial  middle  class.  It  was  treated  with  contempt, 
and  even  persecuted,  by  Anglicans,  especially  by  the  monarchs 
of  the  Stuart  family.  After  a  complete  but  temporary  triumph 
under  Cromwell,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  it  was  at  length 
legally  tolerated  in  England  after  the  settlement  of  1689.  It 
was  from  England  that  New  England  received  the  Calvinistic 
religion  which  dominated  colonial  forefathers  of  many  present- 
day  Americans. 

ANGLICANISM 

Anglicanism  is  the  name  frequently  applied  to  that  form  of 
Protestantism  which  stamped  the  state  church  in  England  in 
the  sixteenth  century  and  which  is  now  represented  by  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  as  well  as  by  the  estab- 
lished Church  of  England.  The  Methodist  churches  are  com- 
paratively late  off-shoots  of  Anglicanism. 

The  separation  of  England  from  the  papacy  was  a  more  gradual 
and  halting  process  than  were  the  contemporary  revolutions  on 
the  Continent;  and  the  new  Anglicanism  was  correspondingly 
more  conservative  than  Lutheranism  or  Calvinism. 

At  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  word  ''Catholic" 
meant  the  same  in  England  as  in  every  other  country  of  western 
English  *^^  central  Europe  —  belief  in  the  seven  sacraments, 
Catholicism  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  the  veneration  of 
saints ;  acceptance  of  papal  supremacy  and  support 
of  monasticism  and  of  other  institutions  and  practices  of  the 
medieval  Church.  During  several  centuries  it  had  been  cus- 
tomary in  legal  documents  to  refer  to  the  Catholic  Church  in 
England  as  the  Ecclesla  Anglkana,  or  Anglican  Church,  just 
as  the  popes  in  their  letters  repeatedly  referred  to  the  "Galilean 
Church,"  the  "Spanish  Church,"  the  "Neapolitan  Church,"  or 
the  "Hungarian  Church. "     But  such  phraseology  did  not  imply  a 

'  Among  the  "Independents"  were  the  Baptists,  a  sect  related  not  so  immedi- 
ately to  Calvinism  as  to  the  radical  Anabaptists  of  Germany.  See  above,  pp. 
134  f.,  145,  footnotes. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  149 

separation  of  any  one  national  church  from  the  common  Cathohc 
communion,  and  for  nearly  a  thousand  years  —  ever  since  there 
had  been  an  Ecdesia  Anglicana  —  the  English  had  recognized 
the  bishop  of  Rome  as  the  center  of  Cathohc  unity.  In  the 
course  of  the  sixteenth  century,  however,  the  great  majority 
of  Englishmen  changed  their  conception  of  the  Ecdesia  Anglicana, 
so  that  to  them  it  continued  to  exist  as  the  Church  of  England, 
but  henceforth  on  a  strictly  national  basis,  in  com-  Church  of 
munion  neither  with  the  pope  nor  with  the  Orthodox  England 
Church  of  the  East  nor  with  the  Lutherans  or  Calvinists,  aban- 
doning several  doctrines  that  had  been  universally  held  in 
earUer  times  and  substituting  in  their  place  beliefs  and  customs 
which  were  distinctively  Protestant.  This  new  conception  of 
the  Anghcan  Church  —  resulting  from  the  revolution  in  the 
sixteenth  century  —  is  what  we  mean  by  Anglicanism  as  a  form 
of  Protestantism.  It  took  shape  in  the  eventful  years  between 
1520  and  1570. 

In  order  to  understand  how  this  religious  and  ecclesiastical 
revolution  was  effected  in  England,  we  must  appreciate  the 
various  elements  distrustful  of  the  Cathohc  Church  _  ,.  . 

Rehgious 

in  that  country  about  the  year  1525.     In  the  first  Opposition 

place,  the  Lutheran  teachings  were  infiltrating  into  ^  ^^^ 

the  country.     As   early  as   1521    a   small   group   at  cathoUc 

Cambridge  had  become  interested  in  the  new  Ger-  Church  m 

^  England 

man   theology,  and   thence    the   sect  spread  to  Ox- 
ford, London,  and  other  intellectual  centers.     It  found  its  early 
converts  chiefly  among  the  lower  clergy  and  the  merchants  of 
the  large  towns,  but  for  several  years  it  was  not  numerous. 

In  the  second  place,  there  was  the  same  feeling  in  England 
as  we  have  already  noted  throughout  all  Europe  that  the  clergy 
needed  reform  in  morals  and  in  manners.  This  view  was  shared 
not  only  by  the  comparatively  insignificant  group  of  heretical 
Lutherans,  but  likewise  by  a  large  proportion  of  the  leading 
men  who  accounted  themselves  orthodox  members  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  The  well-educated  humanists  were  especially  eloquent 
in  preaching  reform.  The  writings  of  Erasmus  had  great  vogue 
in  England.  John  Colet  (i467?-i5i9),  a  famous  dean  of  St. 
Paul's  cathedral  in  London,  was  a  keen  reformer  who  disapproved 
of  auricular  confession  and  of  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy.     Sir 


I50  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Thomas  More  (1478-153 5),  one  of  the  greatest  minds  of  the 
century,  thought  the  monks  were  lazy  and  indolent,  and  the 
whole  body  of  churchmen  in  need  of  an  intellectual  betterment. 
But  neither  Colet  nor  More  had  any  intention  of  breaking  away 
from  the  Roman  Church.  To  them,  and  to  many  like  them, 
reform  could  be  secured  best  within  the  traditional  ecclesiastical 
body. 

A  third  source  of  distrust  of  the  Church  was  a  purely  political 
feeling  against  the  papacy.  As  we  have  already  seen,  the 
„  ,.,.   ,         English    king    and    Enghsh    parliament    on    several 

Political  f.  .  ^         ^  ^  •  i  , 

Opposition  carher  occasions  had  sought  to  restrict  the  temporal 
^  ^^^  and  political  jurisdiction  of   the  pope  in   England, 

Catholic  but  eacli  restriction  had  been  imposed  for  political 
F^"rV°  reasons  and  even  then  had  represented  the  will  of 
the  monarch  rather  than  that  of  the  nation.  In 
fact,  the  most  striking  Hmitations  of  the  pope's  pohtical  juris- 
diction in  the  kingdom  had  been  enacted  during  the  early  stages 
of  the  Hundred  Years'  War,  when  the  papacy  was  under  French 
influence,  and  had  served,  therefore,  indirectly  as  political 
weapons  against  the  French  king.  Before  that  war  was  over, 
the  operation  of  the  statutes  had  been  relaxed,  and  for  a  century 
or  more  prior  to  1525  httle  was  heard  of  even  a  political  feehng 
against  the  bishop  of  Rome. 

Nevertheless  an  evolution  in  English  government  was  in 
progress  at  that  very  time,  which  was  bound  sooner  or  later  to 
create  friction  with  the  Holy  See.  On  one  hand,  a  sense  of 
nationalism  and  of  patriotism  had  been  steadily  growing  in 
England,  and  it  was  at  variance  with  the  older  cosmopolitan 
idea  of  Catholicism.  On  the  other  hand,  a  great  increase  of 
royal  power  had  appeared  in  the  fifteenth  century,  notably 
after  the  accession  of  the  Tudor  family  in  1485.  Henry  VII 
(1485-1509)  had  subordinated  to  the  crown  both  the  nobihty 
and  the  parliament,  and  the  patriotic  support  of  the  middle 
class  he  had  secured.  And  when  his  son,  Henry  VIII  (1509- 
1547),  came  to  the  throne,  the  only  serious  obstacle  which 
appeared  to  be  left  in  the  way  of  royal  absolutism  was  the  privi- 
leged independence  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

Yet  a  number  of  years  passed  before  Henry  VIII  laid  violent 
hands  upon  the  Church.     In  the  meanwhile,  he  proved  himself 


FOUNDATIONS  OF  MODERN   EUROPE  151 

a  devoted  Roman   Catholic.     He  scented   the   new   Lutheran 
heresy  and  sought  speedily  to  exterminate  it.     He  even  wrote 
in  1521  with  his  own  royal  pen  a  bitter  arraignment 
of  the  new  theology,  and  sent  his  book,  which  he  Loyalty  of 
called  The  Defence  of  tJie  Seven  Sacraments,  with  a  Henry  viii 

.  to  the 

delightful  dedicatory  epistle  to  the  pope.     For  his  Roman 
prompt  piety  and  filial  orthodoxy,  he  received  from  Sf^^"'/'^ 
the  bishop  of  Rome  the  proud  title  of  Fidei  Defensor, 
or  Defender  of  the  Faith,  a  title  which  he  jealously  bore  until 
his  death,  and  which  his  successors,  the  sovereigns  of  Great 
Britain,  with  like  humor  have  continued  to  bear  ever  since. 
He  seemed  not  even  to  question  the  pope's  political  claims. 
He  alhed  himself  on  several  occasions  with  Leo  X  in  the  great 
game  of  European  politics.     His  chief  minister  and  adviser  in 
England  for  many  years  was  Thomas  Wolsey,  the  most  con- 
spicuous ecclesiastic  in  his  kingdom  and  a  cardinal  of  the  Roman 
Church. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  difhcult  to  see  how  the  An- 
glican   Church   would    have   immediately   broken    away    from 
CathoHc  unity  had  it  not  been  for  the  peculiar  marital 
troubles  of  Henry  VHL     The  king  had  been  married  Marriage 
eighteen  years  to  Catherine  of  Aragon,  and  had  been  h^^^^^vth 
presented  by  her  with  six  children   (of  whom  only 
one  daughter,  the  Princess  Mary,  had  survived),  when  one  day 
he  informed  her  that  they  had  been  living  all  those  years  in 
mortal  sin  and  that  their  union  was  not  true  marriage.     The 
queen  could  hardly  be  expected  to  agree  with  such  a  definition, 
and  there  ensued  a  legal  suit  between  the  royal  pair. 

To  Henry  VIII  the  matter  was  really  quite  simple.  Henry 
was  tired  of  Catherine  and  wanted  to  get  rid  of  her ;  he  believed 
the  queen  could  bear  him  no  more  children  and  yet  he  ardently 
desired  a  male  heir ;  rumor  reported  that  the  susceptible  king 
had  recently  been  smitten  by  the  brilliant  black  eyes  of  a  certain 
Anne  Bole^-n,  a  maid-in-waiting  at  the  court.  The  purpose  of 
Henry  was  obvious ;  so  was  the  means,  he  thought.  For  it 
had  occurrf^d  to  him  that  Catherine  was  his  elder  brother's 
widow,  and,  therefore,  had  no  right,  by  church  law,  to  marry 
him.  To  be  sure,  a  papal  dispensation  had  been  obtained  from 
Pope  Julius  II  authorizing  the  marriage,  but  why  not  now  ob- 


152  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

tain  a  revocation  of  that  dispensation  from  the  reigning  Pope 
Clement  VII?  Thus  the  marriage  with  Catherine  could  be 
declared  null  and  void,  and  Henry  would  be  a  bachelor,  thirty- 
six  years  of  age,  free  to  wed  some  princess,  or  haply  Anne  Boleyn. 

There  was  no  doubt  that  Clement  VII  would  like  to  do  a  favor 
for  his  great  English  champion,  but  two  difficulties  at  once 
Difficult  presented  themselves.  It  would  be  a  most  dangerous 
Position  of  precedent  for  the  pope  to  reverse  the  decision  of  one  of 
t  e  ope  j^-g  predecessors.  Worse  still,  the  Emperor  Charles  V, 
the  nephew  of  Queen  Catherine,  took  up  cudgels  in  his  aunt's  be- 
half and  threatened  Clement  with  dire  penalties  if  he  nuUified 
the  marriage.  The  pope  complained  truthfully  that  he  was 
between  the  anvil  and  the  hammer.  There  was  little  for  him 
to  do  except  to  temporize  and  to  delay  decision  as  long  as 
possible. 

The  protracted  delay  was  very  irritating  to  the  impulsive 
English  king,  who  was  now  really  in  love  with  Anne  Boleyn. 
Gradually  Henry's  former  effusive  loyalty  to  the  Roman  See 
gave  way  to  a  settled  conviction  of  the  tyranny  of  the  papal 
power,  and  there  rushed  to  his  mind'  the  recollection  of  efforts 
of  earlier  English  rulers  to  restrict  that  power.  A  few  salutary 
enactments  against  the  Church  might  compel  a  favorable  de- 
cision from  the  pope. 

Henry  VIII  seriously  opened  his  campaign  against  the  Roman 
Church  in  1531,  when  he  frightened  the  EngHsh  clergy  into 
paying  a  fine  of  over  half  a  million  dollars  for  violating  an  ob- 
solete statute  that  had  forbidden  reception  of  papal  legates 
without  royal  sanction,  and  in  the  same  year  he  forced  the 
clergy  to  recognize  himself  as  supreme  head  of  the  Church  "as 
far  as  that  is  permitted  by  the  law  of  Christ."  His  subservient 
Parliament  then  empowered  him  to  stop  the  payment  of  annates 
and  to  appoint  the  bishops  without  recourse  to  the  papacy. 
Without  waiting  longer  for  the  papal  decision,  he  had  Cranmer, 
one  of  his  own  creatures,  whom  he  had  just  named  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  declare  his  marriage  with  Catherine  null  and 
void  and  his  union  with  Anne  Boleyn  canonical  and  legal. 
Pope  Clement  VII  thereupon  handed  down  his  long-delayed 
decision  favorable  to  Queen  Catherine,  and  excommunicated 
Henry  VIII  for  adultery. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  153 

The   formal   breach   between    England    and    Rome   occurred 
in  1534.     Parliament  passed  a  series  of  laws,  one  of 
which  declared  the  king  to  be  the  "only  supreme  o^E^ngiand 
head  in  earth  of  the  Church  of  England,"  and  others  from  the 
cut  off   all   communication   with   the   pope   and   in-   catholic 
flicted    the    penalty  of    treason    upon  any  one  who  Church: 
should  deny  the  king's  ecclesiastical  supremacy.  Supremacy 

One  step  in  the  transition  of  the  Church  of  England 
had  now  been  taken.  For  centuries  its  members  had  recognized 
the  pope  as  their  ecclesiastical  head ;  henceforth  they  were  to 
own  the  ecclesiastical  headship  of  their  king.  From  the  former 
Catholic  standpoint,  this  might  be  schism  but  it  was  not  neces- 
sarily heresy.  Yet  Henry  VIII  encountered  considerable  opposi- 
tion from  the  higher  clergy,  from  the  monks,  and  from  many 
intellectual  leaders,  as  well  as  from  large  numbers  of  the  lower 
classes.  A  popular  uprising  —  the  Pilgrimage  of  Grace  —  was 
sternly  suppressed,  and  such  men  as  the  brilhant  Sir  Thomas 
More  and  John  Fisher,  the  aged  and  saintly  bishop  of  Rochester, 
were  beheaded  because  they  retained  their  former  belief  in 
papal  supremacy.     Tudor  despotism  triumphed. 

The  breach  with  Rome  naturally  encouraged  the  Lutherans 
and  other  heretics  to  think  that  England  was  on  the  point  of 
becoming  Protestant,  but  nothing  was  further  from  The  "  Six 
the  king's  mind.  The  assailant  of  Luther  remained  Articles " 
at  least  partially  consistent.  And  the  Six  Articles  (1539)  re- 
affirmed the  chief  points  in  Catholic  doctrine  and  practice  and 
visited  dissenters  with  horrible  punishment.  While  separating 
England  from  the  papacy,  Henry  was  firmly  resolved  to  main- 
tain every  other  tenet  of  the  Catholic  faith  as  he  had  received 
it.  His  middle-of-the-road  policy  was  enforced  with  much 
bloodshed.  On  one  side,  the  Catholic  who  denied  the  royal 
supremacy  was  beheaded ;  on  the  other,  the  Protestant  who 
denied  transubstantiation  was  burned  !  It  has  been  estimated 
that  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  the  number  of  capital 
condemnations  for  politico-reHgious  offenses  ran  into  the  thou- 
sands —  an  inquisition  that  in  terror  and  bloodshed  is  com- 
parable to  that  of  Spain. 

It  was  likewise  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  that  one  of 
the  most  important  of  all  earlier  Christian  institutions  —  monas- 


154  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

ticism  —  came  to  an  end  in  England.  There  were  certainly  grave 
abuses  and  scandals  in  some  of  the  monasteries  which  dotted 
Suppression  ^^^  Country,  and  a  good  deal  of  popular  sentiment 
of  the  had   been   aroused   against   the   institution.      Then, 

Monastenes  ^^^^  ^-^^  monks  had  generally  opposed  the  royal 
pretensions  to  rehgious  control  and  remained  loyal  to  the  pope. 
But  the  deciding  factor  in  the  suppression  of  the  monasteries 
was  undoubtedly  economic.  Henry,  always  in  need  of  funds  on 
account  of  his  extravagances,  appropriated  part  of  the  confiscated 
property  for  the  benefit  of  the  crown,  and  the  rest  he  astutely 
distributed  as  gigantic  bribes  to  the  upper  classes  of  the  laity. 
The  nobles  who  accepted  the  ecclesiastical  wealth  were  thereby 
committed  to  the  new  anti-papal  rehgious  settlement  in  England. 

The  Church  of  England,  separated  from  the  papacy  under 
Henry  VIII,  became  Protestant  under  Edward  VI  (i 547-1 553). 
The  young  king's  guardian  tolerated  all  manner  of 
izing^the'^  reforming  propaganda,  and  Calvinists  as  well  as 
Church  of  Lutherans  preached  their  doctrines  freely.  Official 
Edward  VI  articles  of  rehgion,  which  were  drawn  up  for  the 
Anglican  Church,  showed  unmistakably  Protestant 
influence.  The  Latin  service  books  of  the  Catholic  Church 
were  translated  into  English,  under  Cranmer's  auspices,  and  the 
edition  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  published  in  1552,  made 
clear  that  the  Eucharist  was  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice:  the  names  "Holy  Communion"  and 
"Lord's  Supper"  were  substituted  for  "Mass,"  while  the  word 
"altar"  was  replaced  by  "table."  The  old  places  of  Catholic 
worship  were  changed  to  suit  a  new  order :  altars  and  images 
were  taken  down,  the  former  service  books  destroyed,  and 
stained-glass  windows  broken.  Several  peasant  uprisings  sig- 
nified that  the  nation  was  not  completely  united  upon  a  policy 
of  rehgious  change,  but  the  reformers  had  their  way,  and  Protes- 
tantism advanced. 

A  temporary  setback  to  the  progress  of  the  new  Anglicanism 
was  afforded  by  the  reign  of  Mary  Tudor  (i 553-1 558),  the 
daughter  of  Catherine  of  Aragon,  and  a  devout  Roman  Cathohc. 
She  reinstated  the  bishops  who  had  refused  to  take  the  oath  of 
royal  supremacy  and  punished  those  who  had  taken  it.  She 
prevailed  upon  Parliament  to  repeal  the  ecclesiastical  legislation 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  155 

of  both  her  father's  and  her  brother's  reigns  and  to  reconcile  Eng- 
land once  more  with  the  bishop  of  Rome.     A  papal  legate,  in 
the  person  of  Cardinal  Reginald  Pole,  sailed  up  the  Temporary 
Thames  with  his  cross  gleaming  from  the  prow  of  his  Roman 
barge,  and  in  full  Parliament  administered  the  ab-  Revival 
solution  which  freed  the   kingdom    from    the    guilt  under  Mary 
incurred  by  its  schism  and  heresy.     As  an  additional 
support  to  her  policy  of  restoring  the  Catholic  Church  in  Eng- 
land, Queen  Mary  married  her  cousin,  Philip  II  of  Spain,  the 
great  champion  of  Catholicism  upon  the  Continent. 

But  events  proved  that  despite  outward  appearances  even 
the  reign  of  IMary  registered  an  advance  of  Protestantism.  The 
new  doctrines  were  zealously  propagated  by  an  ever-growing 
number  of  itinerant  exhorters.  The  Spanish  alliance  was  disas- 
trous to  English  fortunes  abroad  and  distasteful  to  all  patriotic 
Englishmen  at  home.  And  finally,  the  violent  means  which 
the  queen  took  to  stamp  out  heresy  gave  her  the  unenviable 
surname  of  "Bloody"  and  reacted  in  the  end  in  behalf  of  the 
views  for  which  the  victims  sacrificed  their  lives.  During  her 
reign  nearly  three  hundred  reformers  perished,  many  of  them, 
including  Archbishop  Cranmer,  by  fire.  The  work  of  the  queen 
was  in  vain.  No  heir  was  born  to  Philip  and  Mary,  and  the 
crown,  therefore,  passed  to  EHzabeth,  the  daughter  of  Anne 
Boleyn,  a  Protestant  not  so  much  from  conviction  as  from 
circumstance. 

It  was  in  the  reign  of  EHzabeth  (1558-1603)  that  the  Church 
of  England  assumed  definitely  the  doctrines  and  practices  which 
we  now  connect  with  the  word  "Anglicanism."     By  Definite 
act  of  Parliament,   the   English   Church  was  again  Fashioning 
separated  from  the  papacy,  and  placed  under  royal  °sm"ttie^^"' 
authority,  Elizabeth  assuming  the  title  of  "supreme  Reign  of 
governor."     The  worship  of  the  state  church  was  to 
be  in  conformity  with  a  slightly  altered  version  of  Cranmer's 
Book   of  Common   Prayer.     A   uniform   doctrine   was   likewise 
imposed  by  Parliament  in  the  form  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles, 
which  set  a  distinctively  Protestant  mark  upon  the  Anghcan 
Church  in  its  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  sole  rule  of  faith, 
its  insistence  on  justification  by  faith  alone,  its  repudiation  of 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  its  definition  of  the  Church.     All 


156  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  bishops  who  had  been  appointed  under  Mary,  with  one 
exception,  refused  to  accept  the  changes,  and  were  therefore 
deposed  and  imprisoned,  but  new  bishops,  Ehzabeth's  own 
appointees,  were  consecrated  and  the  "succession  of  bishops" 
thereby  maintained.  Outwardly,  the  Church  of  England  ap- 
peared to  retain  a  corporate  continuity  throughout  the  sixteenth 
century ;  inwardly,  a  great  revolution  had  changed  it  from 
Catholic  to  Protestant. 

Harsh  laws  sought  to  oblige  all  Englishmen  to  conform  to 
Elizabeth's  religious  settlement.  Liberty  of  public  worship 
was  denied  to  any  dissenter  from  Anglicanism.  To  be  a  "papist " 
or  "hear  Mass" — ^  which  were  construed  as  the  same  thing — ■ 
was  punishable  by  death  as  high  treason.  A  special  eccle- 
siastical court  —  the  Court  of  High  Commission  —  was  es  b- 
lished  under  royal  authority  to  search  out  heresy  and  to  enforce 
uniformity ;  it  served  throughout  Elizabeth's  reign  as  a  kind  of 
Protestant  Inquisition. 

While  the  large  majority  of  the  English  nation  gradually 
conformed  to  the  official  Anglican  Church,  a  considerable  num- 
ber refused  their  allegiance.  On  one  hand  were  the 
Dissent  Roman  Catholics,  who  still  maintained  the  doctrine 
from  An-        Qf  papal  supremacy  and  were  usually  derisively  styled 

glicanism         ,,  •         m  1  i  ^         ^         1  •  ^   i 

papists,  and  on  the  other  hand  were  various  Cal- 
vinistic  sects,  such  as  Presbyterians  or  Independents  or  Quakers, 
who  went  by  the  name  of  "Dissenters"  or  "Non-conformists." 
In  the  course  of  time,  the  number  of  Roman  Catholics  tended 
to  diminish,  largely  because,  for  political  reasons  which  have 
been  indicated  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Protestantism  in  Eng- 
land became  almost  synonymous  with  English  patriotism. 
But  despite  drastic  laws  and  dreadful  persecutions,  Roman 
Catholicism  survived  in  England  among  a  conspicuous  group 
of  people.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Calvinists  tended  somewhat  to 
increase  their  numbers  so  that  in  the  seventeenth  century  they 
were  able  to  precipitate  a  great  poHtical  and  ecclesiastical 
conflict  with  Anglicanism. 

THE   CATHOLIC  REFORMATION 

We  have  now  traced  the  origins  of  the  Protestant  Revolt 
against   the    Catholic    Church,    and   have   seen   how,    between 


FOUNDATIONS  OF   MODERN   EUROPE  157 

1520  and  1570,  three  major  varieties  of  new  theology  — •  Luther- 
anism,  Calvinism,  and  Anglicanism  -- appeared  on  the  scene 
and  divided  among  themselves  the  nations  of  northern  Europe. 
The  story  of  how,  during  that  critical  half-century,  the  other 
civilized  nations  retained  their  loyalty  to  the  Catholic  Church 
virtually  as  it  had  existed  throughout  the  middle  ages,  re- 
mains to  be  told.  The  preservation  of  the  papal  monarchy 
and  CathoKc  doctrine  in  southern  Europe  was  due  alike  to 
religious  and  to  political  circumstances. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  pious  critics  of  ecclesiastical 
abuses  were  confined  to  countries  which  subsequently  became 
Protestant.     There  were  many  sincere  Catholics  in 
Italy,  Austria,   France,   and  Spain  who  complained   compUants 
of   the   scandals   and   worldliness    that   afflicted    the  against 
Church   at    the    opening   of   the    sixteenth   century :  the^Church 
they  demanded  sweeping  reforms  in  discipline  and  a 
return  of  the  clergy  to  a  simple  apostolic  life.     They  believed, 
however,   that  whatever  change  was  desirable   could  best  be 
achieved  by  means  of  a  reformation  \vithin  the  Catholic  Church, 
— ■  that  is,  without  disturbing  the  unity  of  its  organization  or 
den>dng  the  validity  of  its  dogmas,  —  while  the  critics  of  north- 
ern Europe,  as  we  have  seen,  preferred  to  put  their  reforms 
into  practice  by  means  of  a  revolution  —  an  out-and-out  break 
with  century-old  traditions  of  Catholic  Christianity.     Even  in 
northern  Europe  some  of  the  foremost  scholars  of  that  period 
desired  an  intellectual  reformation  within  Catholicism  rather 
than  a  dogmatic  rebelHon  against  it :   with  Luther's  defiance 
of  papal  authority,  the  great  Erasmus  had  small  sympathy,  and 
Sir  Thomas  More,  the  eminent  English  humanist,  sacrificed  his 
life  for  his  belief  in  the  divine  sanction  of  the  papal  power. 

Thus,  while  the  religious  energy  of  northern  Europe  went 
into  Protestantism  of  various  kinds,  that  of  southern  Europe 
fashioned  a  reformation  of  the  Catholic  system.  And  this 
Catholic  reformation,  on  its  religious  side,  was  brought  to  a 
successful  issue  by  means  of  the  improved  conditions  in  the 
papal  court,  the  labors  of  a  great  church  council,  and  the 
activity  of  new  monastic  orders.  A  few  words  must  be  said 
about  each  one  of  these  religious  elements  in  the  Catholic 
reformation. 


158  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Mention  has  been  made  of  the  corruption  that  prevailed  in 
papal  affairs  in  the  fifteenth  century,  and  of  the  Italian  and 
Reforming  family  interests  which  obscured  to  the  Medici  pope, 
Popes  Leo  X  (1513-1521),  the  importance  of  the  Lutheran 

movement  in  Germany.  And  Leo's  nephew,  who  became 
Clement  VII  (1523-1534),  continued  to  act  too  much  as  an 
Italian  prince  and  too  little  as  the  moral  and  religious  leader  of 
Catholicism  in  the  contest  which  under  him  was  joined  with 
Zwinglians  and  Anglicans  as  well  as  with  Lutherans.  But 
under  Paul  III  (i  534-1 549),  a  new  policy  was  inaugurated,  by 
which  men  were  appointed  to  high  church  offices  for  their  virtue 
and  learning  rather  than  for  family  relationship  or  financial 
gain.  This  policy  was  maintained  by  a  series  of  upright  and 
far-sighted  popes  during  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, so  that  by  the  year  1600  a  remarkable  reformation  had 
been  gradually  wrought  in  the  papacy,  among  the  cardinals, 
down  through  the  prelates,  even  to  the  parish  priests  and 
monks. 

The  reforming  zeal  of  individual  popes  was  stimulated  and 

reenforced  by  the  work  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (1545-1563). 

The  idea  of  effecting  a  ''reformation  in  head   and 

The  Council  ^  }j     ^  t  ^  •!         r     j^i 

of  Trent  members  by  means  of  a  general  council  of  the 
Catholic  Church  had  been  invoked  several  times 
during  the  century  that  preceded  the  Protestant  Revolt,  but, 
before  Luther,  little  had  been  accomplished  in  that  way. 

With  the  widening  of  the  breach  between  Protestantism  and 
the  medieval  Church,  what  had  formerly  been  desirable  now 
became  imperative.  It  seemed  to  pious  Catholics  that  every 
effort  should  be  made  to  reconcile  differences  and  to  restore  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  The  errors  of  the  manifold  new  theologies 
which  now  appeared  might  be  refuted  by  a  clear  statement  of 
CathoHc  doctrine,  and  a  reformation  of  discipline  and  morals 
would  deprive  the  innovators  of  one  of  their  most  telling  weapons 
against  the  Church. 

It  was  no  easy  task,  in  that  troublous  time,  to  hold  an  oecumeni- 
cal council.  There  was  mutual  distrust  between  Catholics  and 
Protestants.  There  was  uncertainty  as  to  the  relative  powers 
and  prerogatives  of  council  and  pope.  There  were  bitter  na- 
tional rivalries,  especially  between  Italians  and  Germans.    There 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  159 

was  actual  warfare  between  the  two  chief  CathoHc  famihes  — 
the  Habsburgs  of  Germany  and  Spain  and  the  royal  house  of 
France. 

Yet  despite  these  difficulties,  which  long  postponed  its  con- 
vocation and  repeatedly  interrupted  its  labors,  the  Council  of 
Trent  ^  consummated  a  great  reform  in  the  Church  and  con- 
tributed materially  to  the  preservation  of  the  Catholic  faith. 
The  Protestants,  whom  the  pope  invited  to  participate,  ab- 
sented themselves ;  yet  such  was  the  number  and  renown  of 
the  CathoHc  bishops  who  responded  to  the  summons  that  the 
Council  of  Trent  easily  ranked  with  the  eighteen  oecumenical 
councils  which  had  preceded  it.-  The  work  of  the  council  was 
twofold  —  dogmatic  and  reformatory. 

Dogmatically,  the  fathers  at  Trent  offered  no  compromise  to 
the  Protestants.     They  confirmed  with  inexorable  frankness  the 
main  points  in   Catholic   theology  which  had  been 
worked   out  in   the   thirteenth   century  by  Thomas  c°n^s  *^ 
Aquinas  and  which  before  the  appearance  of  Protes-  of  the 
tantism  had  been  received  everywhere  in  central  and  Qfj^l^^ 
western  Europe.     They  declared  that  the  tradition 
of  the  Church  as  well  as  the  Bible  was  to  be  taken  as  the  basis 
of  the  Christian  reHgion,   and  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
Holy  Scripture  belonged  only  to  the  Church.     The  Protestant 
teachings  about  grace  and  justification  by  faith  were  condemned, 
and  the  seven  sacraments  were  pronounced  indispensable.     The 
miraculous  and  sacrificial  character  of  the  Lord's  Supper  (Mass) 
was  reaffirmed.     Belief  in  the  invocation  of  saints,  in  the  venera- 
tion of  images  and  of  relics,  in  purgatory  and  indulgences  was 
expHcitly  stated,  but  precautions  were  taken  to  clear  some  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  pernicious  practices  which  at  times  had 
been   connected   with    them.     The   spiritual   authority   of    the 
Roman  See  was  confirmed  over  all  Catholicism :    the  pope  was 
recognized   as   supreme  interpreter  of   the  canons   and  incon- 
testable chief  of  bishops. 

^  Trent  was  selected  largely  by  reason  of  its  geographical  location,  being  situated 
on  the  boundary  between  the  German-speaking  and  Italian-speaking  peoples. 

-  Its  decrees  were  signed  at  its  close  (1563)  by  4  cardinal  legates,  2  cardinals, 
3  patriarchs,  25  archbishops,  167  bishops,  7  abbots,  7  generals  of  orders,  and  19 
proxies  for  33  absent  prelates. 


i6o  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

A  volume  of  disciplinary  statutes  constituted  the  second 
achievement  of  the  Tridentine  Council.  The  sale  of  church 
offices  was  condemned.  Bishops  and  other  prelates 
Canons^  "'^^  wcre  to  reside  in  their  respective  dioceses,  abandon 
of  the  worldly   pursuits,    and    give    themselves    entirely    to 

of°Trent  spiritual  labors.  Seminaries  were  to  be  established 
for  the  proper  education  and  training  of  priests. 
While  Latin  was  retained  as  the  official  and  liturgical  language, 
frequent  sermons  were  to  be  preached  in  the  vernacular.  In- 
dulgences were  not  to  be  issued  for  money,  and  no  charge  should 
be  made  for  conferring  the  sacraments. 

The  seed  sown  by  the  council  bore  abundant  fruit  during 
several  succeeding  pontificates.  The  central  government  was 
Index  and  Completely  reorganized.  A  defoiite  catechism  was 
Inquisition  prepared  at  Rome  and  every  layman  instructed  in 
the  tenets  and  obligations  of  his  religion.  Revisions  were  made 
in  the  service  books  of  the  Church,  and  a  new  standard  edition 
of  the  Latin  Bible,  the  Vulgate,  was  issued.  A  list,  called  the 
Index,  was  prepared  of  dangerous  and  heretical  books,  which 
good  Catholics  were  prohibited  from  reading.  By  these  methods, 
discipline  was  in  fact  confirmed,  morals  purified,  and  the  scandal 
of  the  immense  riches  and  the  worldly  life  of  the  clergy  restrained. 
From  an  unusually  strict  law  of  faith  and  conduct,  lapses  were 
to  be  punishable  by  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  court  of  the  In- 
quisition, which  now  zealously  redoubled  its  activity,  especially 
in  Italy  and  in  Spain. 

A  very  important  factor  in  the  Catholic  revival  —  not  only 
in  preserving  all  southern  Europe  to  the  Church  but  also  in 
preventing  a  complete  triumph  of  Protestantism  in  the  North 
—  was  the  formation  of  several  new  religious  orders,  which 
sought  to  purify  the  life  of  the  people  and  to  bulwark  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Church.  The  most  celebrated  of  these  orders, 
both  for  its  labors  in  the  sixteenth  century  and  for  its  subsequent 
history,  is  the  Society  of  Jesus,  whose  members  are  known 
commonly  as  Jesuits.  The  society  was  founded  by  Ignatius 
Loyola^  in  1534  and  its  constitution  was  formally  approved  by 
the  pope  six  years  later. 

In  his  earlier  years,  Ignatius  followed  the  profession  of  arms, 

^  Ignatius  Loyola  (1491-1556). 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN    EUROPE  i6i 

and  as  a  patriotic  Spaniard  fought  valiantly  in  the  armies  of 
Emperor  Charles  V  against  the  French.  But  while  he  was  in 
a  hospital,  suffering  from  a  wound,  he  chanced  to  Ignatius 
read  a  Life  of  Christ  and  biographies  of  several  Loyola 
saints,  which,  he  tells  us,  worked  a  great  change  withiri  him. 
From  being  a  soldier  of  an  earthly  king,  he  would  now  become 
a  knight  of  Christ  and  of  the  Church.  Instead  of  fighting  for 
the  glory  of  Spain  and  of  himself,  he  would  henceforth  strive 
for  the  greater  glory  of  God.  Thus  in  the  very  year  in  which 
the  German  monk,  Martin  Luther,  became  the  leading  and 
avowed  adversary  of  the  Catholic  Church,  this  Spanish  soldier 
was  starting  on  that  remarkable  career  which  was  to  make  him 
Catholicism's  chief  champion. 

After  a  few  years'  trial  of  his  new  life  and  several  rather 
footless  efforts  to  serve  the  Church,  Ignatius  determined,  at 
the  age  of  thirty-three,  to  perfect  his  scanty  education.  It  was 
while  he  was  studying  Latin,  philosophy,  and  theology  at  the 
University  of  Paris  that  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  group 
of  scholarly  and  saintly  men  who  became  the  first  members  of 
the  Society  of  Jesus.  Intended  at  first  primarily  for  missionary 
labors  among  the  Mohammedans,  the  order  was  speedily  turned 
to  other  and  greater  ends. 

The  organization  of  the  Jesuits  showed  the  military  instincts  of 
their  founder.  To  the  three  usual  vows  of  poverty,  chastity,  and 
obedience,  was  added  a  fourth  vow  of  special  allegiance  ^^    ^ 

'  1  r     n         ^^^  Jesuits 

to  the  pope.  The  members  were  to  be  carefully 
trained  during  a  long  novitiate  and  were  to  be  under  the  personal 
direction  of  a  general,  resident  in  Rome.  Authority  and  obe- 
dience were  stressed  by  the  society.  Then,  too,  St.  Ignatius 
Loyola  understood  that  the  Church  was  now  confronted  with 
conditions  of  war  rather  than  of  peace  :  accordingly  he  directed 
that  his  brothers  should  not  content  themselves  with  prayer 
and  works  of  peace,  with  charity  and  local  benevolence,  but 
should  adapt  themselves  to  new  circumstances  and  should 
strive  in  a  multiplicity  of  ways  to  restore  all  things  in  the  Cathohc 
Church. 

Thus  it  happened  that  the  Jesuits,  from  the  very  year  of  their 
estabhshment,  rushed  to  the  front  in  the  religious  conflict  of  the 
sixteenth  century.     In  the  first  place,  they  sought  to  enhghten 


i62  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  educate  the  young.  As  schoolmasters  they  had  no  equals 
in  Europe  for  many  years.  No  less  a  scholar  and  scientist  than 
Lord  Francis  Bacon  said  of  the  Jesuit  teaching  that  "nothing 
better  has  been  put  in  practice."  Again,  by  their  wide  learning 
and  culture,  no  less  than  by  the  unimpeachable  purity  of  their 
lives,  they  won  back  a  considerable  respect  for  the  Catholic 
clergy.  As  preachers,  too,  they  earned  a  high  esteem  by  the 
clearness  and  simplicity  of  their  sermons  and  instruction. 

It  was  in  the  mission  field,  however,  that  the  Jesuits  achieved 
the  most  considerable  results.  They  were  mainly  responsible 
for  the  recovery  of  Poland  after  that  country  had  almost  be- 
come Lutheran.  They  similarly  conserved  the  Catholic  faith 
in  Bavaria  and  in  the  southern  Netherlands.  They  insured  a 
respectable  Catholic  party  in  Bohemia  and  in  Hungary.  They 
aided  considerably  in  maintaining  Catholicism  in  Ireland. 
At  the  hourly  risk  of  their  lives,  they  ministered  to  their  fellow- 
CathoHcs  in  England  under  Elizabeth  and  the  Stuarts.  And 
what  the  Catholic  Church  lost  in  numbers  through  the  defection 
of  the  greater  part  of  northern  Europe  was  compensated  for  by 
Jesuit  missions  among  the  teeming  millions  in  India  and  China, 
among  the  Huron  and  Iroquois  tribes  of  North  America,  and 
among  the  aborigines  of  Brazil  and  Paraguay.  No  means  of 
influence,  no  source  of  power,  was  neglected  that  would  win 
men  to  religion  and  to  the  authority  of  the  bishop  of  Rome. 
Politics  and  agriculture  were  utilized  as  well  as  literature  and 
science.  The  Jesuits  were  confessors  of  kings  in  Europe  and 
apostles  of  the  faith  in  Asia  and  America. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  already  that  the  rapid  diffusion  of 
Protestantism  was  due  to  economic  and  political  causes  as  well 

as  to  those  narrowly  religious.  It  may  be  said  with 
and  ^'^^  equal  truth  that  political  and  economic  causes  co- 
Economic  operated  with  the  religious  developments  that  we 
in^the^^  have   just  noted  in  maintaining  the   supremacy  of 

Catholic  the  Catholic  Church  in  at  least  half  the  countries 
tion°'^"^        over  which  she  had  exercised  her  sway  in  1500.     For 

one  thing,  it  is  doubtful  whether  financial  abuses 
had  flourished  as  long  or  as  vigorously  in  southern  as  in  north- 
ern Europe.  For  another,  the  pohtical  conditions  in  the  states 
of  southern  Europe  help  to  explain  the  interesting  situation. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  163 

In  Italy  was  the  pope's  residence  and  See.  He  had  be- 
stowed many  favors  on  important  Itahan  families.  He  had 
often  exploited  foreign  countries  in  behalf  of  Italian 
patronage.  He  had  taken  advantage  of  the  political 
disunity  of  the  peninsula  to  divide  his  local  enemies  and  thereby 
to  assure  the  victory  of  his  own  cause.  Two  popes  of  the  six- 
teenth century  belonged  to  the  powerful  Florentine  family  of 
the  Medici  —  Florence  remained  loyal.  The  hearty  support 
of  the  Emperor  Charles  V  preserved  the  orthodoxy  of  Naples, 
and  that  of  Philip  II  stamped  out  heresy  in  the  kingdom  of  the 
Two  Sicihes. 

In  France,  the  concordat  of  15 16  between  pope  and  king  had 
peacefully  secured  for  the  French  monarch  appointment  of 
bishops  and  control  of  benefices  within  his  country, 
—  powers  which  the  German  princes  and  the  English 
sovereigns  secured  by  revolutionary  change.  Moreover,  French 
Protestantism,  by  its  political  activities  in  behalf  of  effective 
checks  upon  the  royal  power,  drove  the  king  into  Catholic 
arms :  the  cause  of  absolutism  in  France  became  the  cause  of 
CathoHcism,  and  the  latter  was  bound  up  with  French  patriot- 
ism to  quite  the  same  extent  as  English  patriotism  became 
Unked  with  the  fortunes  of  Anglicanism. 

In  Spain  and  Portugal,  the  monarchs  obtained  concessions 
from  the  pope  like  those  accorded  the  French  sovereigns.  They 
gained  control  of  the  Catholic  Church  within  their  Spain  and 
countries  and  found  it  a  most  valuable  ally  in  for-  Portugal 
warding  their  absolutist  tendencies.  Moreover,  the  centuries- 
long  struggle  with  Mohammedanism  had  endeared  Catholic 
Christianity  alike  to  Spaniards  and  to  Portuguese  and  rendered 
it  an  integral  part  of  their  national  life.  Spain  and  Portugal 
now  remained  fiercely  Cathohc. 

Somewhat  similar  was  the  case  of  Austria.     Terrifying  fear 
of  the  advancing  Turk,  joined  with  the  political  exigencies  of 
the  Habsburg  rulers,  threw  that  duchy  with  most  oi 
its  dependencies  into  the  hands  of  the  pope.     If  the 
bishop  of  Rome,  by  favoring  the  Habsburgs,  had  lost  England, 
he  had  at  least  saved  Austria.  Poland 

Ireland  and  Poland  —  those  two  extreme  outposts  ^"^  Ireland 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Europe  —  found  their  religion 


•   1 64  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

to  be  the  most  effectual  safeguard  of  their  nationahty,  the  most 
valuable  weapon  against  aggression  or  assimilation  by  powerful 
neighbors. 

SUMMARY   OF    THE    RELIGIOUS    REVOLUTION   IN   THE 
SIXTEENTH    CENTURY 

By  the  year  1570  the  profound  religious  and  ecclesiastical 
changes  which  we  have  been  sketching  had  been  made.  For 
seventy-five  years  more  a  series  of  wars  was  to  be  waged  in 
which  the  reUgious  element  was  distinctly  to  enter.  In  fact 
these  wars  have  often  been  called  the  ReHgious  Wars  —  the 
ones  connected  with  the  career  of  PhiHp  II  of  Spain  as  well  as 
the  subsequent  dismal  ci\dl  war  in  the  Germanics  —  but  in 
each  one  the  poHtical  and  economic  factors  predominated. 
Nor  did  the  series  of  wars  materially  affect  the  strength  or 
extent  of  the  rehgions  imphcated.  It  was  prior  to  1570  that  the 
Protestant  Revolt  had  been  effected  and  the  CathoHc  Reforma- 
tion achieved. 

In  the  year  1500,  the  Roman  CathoUc  Church  embraced  central 

and  western  Europe;   in  the  year  1600  nearly  half  of  its  former 

subjects  —  those  throughout  northern  Europe  —  no 

Geographi-      ,        •'  .       ,    .  ^    ,       .  .       ,    .        , 

cai  Extent  longer  recogmzed  its  authority  or  practiced  its  be- 
of  the  ]ieis.     There  were  left  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 

at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  Itahan 
states,  Spain,  Portugal,  most  of  France,  the  southern  Nether- 
lands, the  forest  cantons  of  Switzerland,  the  southern  Ger- 
manics, Austria,  Poland,  Ireland,  large  followings  in  Bohemia 
and  Hungary,  and  a  stragghng  unimportant  following  in  other 
countries. 

Those  who  rejected  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  central 
and  western  Europe  were  collectively  called  Protestants,  but 
they  were  divided  into  three  major  groups.  Lutheranism  was 
now  the  religion  of  the  northern  Germanies  and  the  Scandina\'ian 
states  of  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden.  Calvinism,  under  a 
bewildering  variety  of  names,  was  the  recognized  faith  of  the 
majority  of  the  cantons  of  Switzerland,  of  the  northern  Nether- 
lands, and  Scotland,  and  of  important  followings  in  Germany, 
Hungary,  France,  and  England.  Anglicanism  was  the  estab- 
hshed  rehgion  of  England. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  165 

The  Protestants  retained  a  large  part  of  Catholic  theology,  so 
that   all  portions   of  western   Christianity   continued   to  have 
much  in  common.     They  still  believed  in  the  Trin-  Doctrines 
ity,  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  sacredness  Held  in 
of  the  Jewish  scriptures  and  of  the  New  Testament,  i,y  catho- 
in  the  fall  of  man  and  his  redemption  through  the  lies  and 
sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  and  in  a  future  life  of  rewards 
and  punishments.     The  Christian  moralities  and  virtues  con- 
tinued to  be  inculcated  by  Protestants  as  well  as  by  Catholics. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Protestants  held  in  common  certain 
doctrines  which  separated  all  of  them  from  Roman  Cathohcism. 
These  were  the  distinguishing  marks  of  Protestantism  :  Doctrines 
(i)  denial  of  the  claims  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  and  Held  by 
consequent  rejection  of  the  papal  government  and  ^ants  Apart 
jurisdiction ;    (2)  rejection  of  such  doctrines  as  were  from 
supposed  to  have  developed  during  the  middle  ages, 
—  for   example,  purgatory,  indulgences,    invocation  of   saints, 
and  veneration  of  rehcs,  —  together  with  important  modifica- 
tions in  the  sacramental  system ;    (3)  insistence  upon  the  right 
of  the  individual  to  interpret  the  Bible,  and  recognition  of  the 
individual's  ability  to  save  himself  without  the  interposition 
of  ecclesiastics  —  hence   to   the   Protestant,   authority    resided 
in  individual  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  while  to  the  Catholic, 
it  rested  in  a  living  institution  or  Church. 

Now  the  Protestant  idea  of  authority  made  it  possible  and 
essentially  inevitable  that  its  supporters  should  not  agree  on 
many  things  among  themselves.     There  would  be  al-  Divisions 
most  as  many  ways  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures  as  among 
there  were  interested  individuals.     It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  that  in  the  last  Almanac  some  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
four  varieties  or  denominations  of  Protestants  are  listed  in  the 
United   States   alone..      These   divisions,   however,    are   not  so 
complex  as  at  first  might  appear,  because  nearly  all  of  them 
have  come  directly  from  the  three  main  forms  of  Protestantism 
which  appeared  in  the  sixteenth  century.     Just  how  Lutheran- 
ism,    Calvinism,    and    Anglicanism    differed    from    each    other 
may  be  gathered  from  a  short  summary. 

(i)  The    Calvinists    taught   justification   by    election  —  that 
God  determines,  or  predestines,  who  is  to  be  saved  and  who  is 


1 66  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

to  be  lost.  The  Lutherans  were  inclined  to  reject  such  doctrine, 
and  to  assure  salvation  to  the  mere  believer.  The  Anglicans 
appeared  to  accept  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith,  although  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  might  be  likewise 
interpreted  in  harmony  with  the  Calvinistic  position. 

(2)  The  Calvinists  recognized  only  two  sacraments  —  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper.  Lutherans  and  Anglicans  retained,  in 
addition  to  the  two  sacraments,  the  rite  of  confirmation,  and 
Anglicans  also  the  rite  of  ordination.  The  ofiicial  statement  of 
Anglicanism  that  there  are  "two  major  sacraments"  has  made 
it  possible  for  some  Anglicans  —  the  so-called  High  Church 
party  —  to  hold  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  seven  sacraments. 

(3)  Various  substitutes  were  made  for  the  Catholic  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation,  the  idea  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the 
bread  and  wine  by  the  word  of  the  priest  are  actually  changed 
into  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  The  Lutherans  maintained 
what  they  called  consubstantiation,  that  Christ  was  with  and 
in  the  bread  and  wine,  as  fire  is  in  a  hot  iron,  to  borrow  the 
metaphor  of  Luther  himself.  The  Calvinists,  on  the  other 
hand,  saw  in  the  Eucharist,  not  the  efficacious  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
but  a  simple  commemoration  of  the  Last  Supper ;  to  them  the 
bread  and  wine  were  mere  symbols  of  the  Body  and  Blood.  As 
to  the  Anglicans,  their  position  was  ambiguous,  for  their  official 
confession  of  faith  declared  at  once  that  the  Supper  is  the  com- 
munion of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Jesus  Christ  but  that  the 
communicant  receives  Jesus  Christ  only  spiritually :  the  present- 
day  "Low  Church"  Anglicans  incline  to  a  Calvinistic  interpreta- 
tion, those  of  the  "High  Church"  to  the  Cathohc  explanation. 

(4)  There  were  pronounced  differences  in  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment. All  the^Protestants  considerably  modified  the  Catholic 
system  of  a  divinely  appointed  clergy  of  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons,  under  the  supreme  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  pope. 
The  Anglicans  rejected  the  papacy,  although  they  retained  the 
orders  of  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon,  and  insisted  that  their 
hierarchy  was  the  direct  continuation  of  the  medieval  Church 
in  England,  and  therefore  that  their  organization  was  on  the 
same  footing  as  the  Orthodox  Church  of  eastern  Europe.  The 
Lutherans  rejected  the  divinely  ordained  character  of  episcopacy, 
but  retained  bishops  as  convenient  administrative  officers.     The 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  167 

Galvinists  did  away  with  bishops  altogether  and  kept  only  one 
order  of  clergjTnen  —  the  presbyters.  Such  Calvinistic  churches 
as  were  governed  by  assembhes  or  synods  of  presbyters  were 
called  Presbyterian;  those  which  subordinated  the  "minister" 
to  the  control  of  the  people  in  each  separate  congregation  were 
styled  Independent,  or  Separatist,  or  Congregational.' 

(5)  In  the  ceremonies  of  pubHc  worship  the  Protestant 
churches  differed.  Anghcanism  kept  a  good  deal  of  the  Catholic 
ritual  although  in  the  form  of  translation  from  Latin  to  English, 
together  with  several  CathoKc  ceremonies,  in  some  places  even 
employing  candles  and  incense.  The  Calvinists,  on  the  other 
hand,  worshiped  with  extreme  simplicity  :  reading  of  the  Bible, 
singing  of  hymns,  extemporaneous  prayer,  and  preaching  con- 
stituted the  usual  service  in  church  buildings  that  were  without 
superfluous  ornaments.  Between  Anghcan  formalism  and  Cal- 
vinistic austerity,  the  Lutherans  presented  a  compromise :  they 
devised  no  uniform  liturgy,  but  showed  some  inclination  to 
utilize  forms  and  ceremonies. 

Of  the  true  significance  of  the  great  reHgious  and  ecclesiastical 
changes  of  the  sixteenth  century  many  estimates  in  the  past 
have  been  made,  varying  with  the  point  of  \dew,  or 
bias,  of  each  author.     Several  results,  however,  now  Significance 
stand   out  clearly    and    are    accepted    generally   by  Protestant 
all  scholars,  regardless  of  reHgious  afhHations.     These  Revolt 
results  may  be  expressed  as  follows : 

In  the  first  place,  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  middle  ages 
was  disrupted  and  the  medieval  ideal  of  a  universal  theocracy 
under  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  rudely  shocked. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Christian  religion  was  largely  national- 
ized. Protestantism  was  the  religious  aspect  of  nationalism; 
it  naturally  came  into  being  as  a  protest  against  the  cosmopoli- 
tan character  of  Catholicism ;  it  received  its  support  from 
nations;  and  it  assumed  everywhere  a  national  form.  The 
German  states,  the  Scandinavian  countries,  Scotland,  England, 
each  had  its  established  state  religion.  What  remained  to  the 
Catholic  Church,  as  we  have  seen,  was  essentially  for  national 
reasons  and  henceforth  rested  mainly  on  a  national  basis. 

^  This  latter  typt  of  church  government  was  maintained  also  by  the  quasi- 
Calvinistic  denomination  of  the  Baptists. 


1 68  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Thirdly,  the  whole  movement  tended  to  narrow  the  Catholic 
Church  dogmatically.  The  exigencies  of  answering  the  Protes- 
tants called  forth  explicit  definitions  of  belief.  The  Catholic 
Church  was  henceforth  on  the  defensive,  and  among  her  mem- 
bers fewer  differences  of  opinion  were  tolerated  than  formerly. 

Fourthly,  a  great  impetus  to  individual  morality,  as  well  as  to 
theological  study,  was  afforded  by  the  reformation.  Not  only 
were  many  men's  minds  turned  temporarily  from  other  intellec- 
tual interests  to  religious  controversy,  but  the  individual  faith- 
ful Catholic  or  Protestant  was  encouraged  to  vie  with  his  neigh- 
bor in  actually  proving  that  his  particular  religion  inculcated  a 
higher  moral  standard  than  any  other.  It  rendered  the  six- 
teenth and  seventeenth  centuries  more  earnest  and  serious  and 
also  more  bigoted  than  the  fifteenth. 

Finally,  the  Protestant  Revolution  led  immediately  to  im- 
portant pohtical  and  social  changes.  The  power  of  secular 
rulers  was  immeasurably  increased.  By  confiscation  of  church 
lands  and  control  of  the  clergy,  the  Tudor  sovereigns  in  Eng- 
land, the  kings  in  Scandinavia,  and  the  German  princes  were 
personally  enriched  and  freed  from  fear  of  being  hampered  in 
absolutist  tendencies  by  an  independent  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion. Even  in  Catholic  countries,  the  monarchs  were  able  to 
wring  such  concessions  from  the  pope  as  resulted  in  shackling 
the  Church  to  the  crown. 

The  wealth  of  the  nobles  was  swelled,  especially  in  Protestant 
countries,  by  seizure  of  the  property  of  the  Church  either  directly 
or  by  means  of  bribes  tendered  for  aristocratic  support  of  the 
royal  confiscations.  But  despite  such  an  access  of  wealth,  the 
monarchs  took  pains  to  see  that  the  nobility  acquired  no  new 
political  influence. 

In  order  to  prevent  the  nobles  from  recovering  political  power, 
the  absolutist  monarchs  enlisted  the  services  of  the  faithful 
middle  class,  which  speedily  attained  an  enviable  position  in 
the  principal  European  states.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  Protes- 
tant Revolution  was  one  of  many  elements  assisting  in  the  de- 
velopment of  this  middle  class. 

For  the  peasantry  —  still  the  bulk  of  European  population  — 
the  religious  and  ecclesiastical  changes  seem  to  have  been  pecul- 
iarly unfortunate.     What  they  gained  through  a  diminution  of 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  169 

ecclesiastical  dues  and  taxes  was  more  than  lost  through  the 
growth  of  royal  despotism  and  the  exactions  of  hard-hearted 
lay  proprietors.  The  peasants  had  changed  the  names  of  their 
oppressors  and  found  themselves  in  a  worse  condition  than 
before.  There  is  little  doubt  that,  at  least  so  far  as  the  Ger- 
manics and  the  Scandinavian  countries  are  concerned,  the  lot  of 
the  peasants  was  less  favorable  immediately  after,  than  im- 
mediately before,  the  rise  of  Protestantism. 

ADDITIONAL  READING 

General.  Good  brief  accounts  of  the  whole  religious  revolution  of  the 
sixteenth  century :  Frederic  Seebohm,  The  Era  of  the  Protestant  Revolu- 
tion,ntvf  ed.  (1904);  J.  H.  Robinson,  Reformation,  in  "  Encyclopaedia  Bri- 
tannica,"  nth  ed.  (1911);  A.  H.  Johnson,  Eur opdn  the  Sixteenth  Century 
(1897),  ch.  iii-v  and  pp.  272  ff. ;  E.  IVI.  Hukne,  Renaissance  and  Reforma- 
tion, 2d  ed.  (1915),  ch.  x-xviii,  xxi-xxiii;  Victor  Duruy,  History  of  Modern 
Times,  trans,  and  rev.  by  E.  A.  Grosvenor  (1894),  ch.  xiii,  xiv.  More 
detailed  accounts  are  given  in  the  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  II  (1904), 
and  in  the  Histoire  generate,  \'ol.  IV,  ch.  x-xvii,  and  Vol.  V,  ch.  i.  All 
the  standard  general  histories  of  the  Christian  Church  contain  accounts 
of  the  rise  of  Protestantism,  naturally  varying  among  themselves  accord- 
ing to  the  rehgious  convictions  of  their  authors.  Among  the  best  Protestant 
histories  may  be  cited  :  T.  M.  Lindsay,  .4  History  of  the  Reformation,  2  vols. 
(1906-1910) ;  Wilhelm  Moeller,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  trans,  and 
condensed  by  J.  H.  Freese,  3  vols.  (1893-1900)  ;  Philip  Schaff,  History 
of  the  Christian  Church,  Vols.  VI  and  VII ;  A.  H.  Newman,  A  Manual 
of  Church  History,  Vol.  II  (1903),  Period  V;  G.  P.  Fisher,  History  of  the 
Christian  Church  (1887),  Period  VIII,  ch.  i-xii.  From  the  Catholic  stand- 
point the  best  ecclesiastical  histories  are  :  John  Alzog,  Manual  of  Universal 
Church  History,  trans,  from  9th  German  edition  (1903),  Vol.  II  and  Vol. 
Ill,  Epoch  I ;  and  the  histories  in  German  by  Joseph  (Cardinal)  Hergen- 
rother  [ed.  by  J.  P.  Kirsch,  2  vols.  (1902-1904)],  by  Alois  Knopfler  (5th 
ed.,  1910)  [based  on  the  famous  Conciliengeschichte  of  K.  J.  (Bishop)  von 
Hefele],  and  by  F.  X.  von  Funk  (5th  ed.,  1911) ;  see,  also,  Alfred  Baudrit- 
lart,  The  Catholic  Church,  the  Renaissance  and  Protestantism,  Eng.  trans, 
by  INIrs.  Philip  Gibbs  (1908).  Many  pertinent  articles  are  to  be  found 
in  the  scholarly  Catholic  Encyclopcedia,  15  vols.  (1907-1912),  in  the  famous 
Realencyklopddie  fiir  protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche,  3d  ed.,  24  vols. 
(1896-1913),  and  in  the  (Non-Catholic)  Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics, 
ed.  by  James  Hastings  and  now  (191 6)  in  course  of  pubHcation.  For  the  popes 
of  the  period,  see  Ludwig  Pastor,  The  History  of  the  Popes  from  the  Close  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  the  monumental  work  of  a  distinguished  CathoUc  historian,  the 
twelfth  volume  of  which  (coming  down  to  1549)  was  published  in  Enghsh 
translation  in  191 2  ;  and  the  older  but  still  useful  (Protestant)  History  of  the 


I70  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Papacy  from  the  Great  Schism  to  the  Sack  of  Rome  by  Mandell  Creighton, 
new  ed.  in  6  vols.  (1899-1901),  and  History  of  the  Popes  by  Leopold  von 
Ranke,  3  vols,  in  the  Bohn  Library  (1885).  Heinrich  Denziger,  Enchiridion 
Sytnbolorum,  Definitionum,  et  Declarationimi  de  rebus  fidei  et  morum,  nth 
ed.  (191 1),  is  a  convenient  collection  of  official  pronouncements  in  Latin 
on  the  Catholic  Faith.  Philip  Schaff,  The  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3  vols. 
(1878),  contains  the  chief  Greek,  Latin,  and  Protestant  creeds  in  the  original 
and  usually  also  in  English  translation.  Also  useful  is  B.  J.  Kidd  (editor), 
Documents  Illustrative  of  the  Continental  Reformation  (191 1).  For  addi- 
tional details  of  the  relation  of  the  Reformation  to  sixteenth-century  politics, 
consult  the  bibliography  appended  to  Chapter  III,  above. 

The  Catholic  Church  in  the  Early  Sixteenth  Century.  In  the  Cambridge 
Modern  History,  Vol.  I  (1902),  a  severe  indictment  of  the  Church  is  pre- 
sented (ch.  xix)  by  H.  C.  Lea,  and  a  defense  is  offered  (ch.  xviii)  by  William 
Barry.  The  former  opinions  are  developed  startlingly  by  H.  C.  Lea  in 
V^ol.  I,  ch.  i,  of  his  History  of  the  Inquisition  in  the  Middle  Ages.  An  old- 
fashioned,  though  still  interesting,  Protestant  view  is  that  of  William 
Roscoe,  Life  and  Pontificate  of  Leo  A',  4  vols,  (first  pub.  1805-1806,  many 
subsequent  editions).  For  an  excellent  description  of  the  organization  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  see  Andre  Mater,  Ueglise  catholique,  sa  constitution, 
son  administration  (1906).  The  best  edition  of  the  canon  law  is  that  of 
Friedberg,  2  vols.  (1881).  On  the  social  work  of  the  Church:  E.  L.  Cutts, 
Parish  Priests  and  their  People  in  the  Middle  Ages  in  England  (i8g8),  and  G. 
A.  Prevost,  Ueglise  et  les  campagnes  au  moyen  age  (1892).  The  most  re- 
cent and  comprehensive  study  of  the  Catholic  Church  on  the  eve  of  the 
Protestant  Revolt  is  that  of  Pierre  Imbart  de  la  Tour,  Les  origines  de  la 
Reforme,  Vol.  I,  La  France  moderne  (1905),  and  Vol.  II,  Ueglise  catholique, 
la  crise  et  la  renaissance  (1909).  For  the  Orthodox  Church  of  the  East 
see  Louis  Duchesne,  The  Churches  Separated  from  Rome,  trans,  by  A.  H. 
Mathew  (igo8). 

Mohammedanism.  Sir  William  Muir,  Life  of  Mohammed,  new  and 
rev.  ed.  by  T.  H.  Weir  (191 2);  Ameer  AH,  Life  and  Teachings  of  Mo- 
hammed (1891),  and,  by  the  same  author,  warmly  sympathetic,  Islam 
(1914) ;  D.  S.  Margoliouth,  Mohammed  and  the  Rise  of  Islam  (1905),  in 
the  "  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series,  and,  by  the  same  author.  The  Early 
Development  of  Mohammedanism  (1914) ;  Arthur  Oilman,  Story  of  the 
Saracens  (1902),  in  the  "  Story  of  the  Nations  "  Series.  Edward  Gibbon 
has  two  famous  chapters  (1,  li)  on  Mohammed  and  the  Arabian  conquests 
in  his  masterpiece,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  The  Koran, 
the  sacred  book  of  Mohammedans,  has  been  translated  into  English  by 
E.  H.  Palmer,  2  vols.  (1880) :  entertaining  extracts  are  given  in  Stanley 
Lane-Poole,  Speeches  and  Table  Talk  of  the  Prophet  Mohammad. 

Luther  and  Lutheranism.  Of  innumerable  biographies  of  Luther  the 
best  from  sympathetic  Protestant  pens  are:  Julius  Kostlin,  Life  of  Luther, 
trans,  and  abridged  from  the  German  (1900) ;  T.  M.  Lindsay,  Luther  and 
the  German  Reformation  (1900) ;  A.  C.  McGiffert,  Martin  Luther,  the  Man 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  171 

and  his  Work  (igii);  Preserved  Smith,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Martin 
Luther  (191 1) ;  Charles  Beard,  Martin  Luther  and  the  Reformation  in  Ger- 
many until  the  Close  of  the  Diet  of  Worms  (1889).  A  remarkable  arraign- 
ment of  Luther  is  the  work  of  the  eminent  Catholic  historian,  F.  H.  S. 
Denifle,  Luther  und  Luthertum  in  der  ersten  Entwickelung,  3  vols.  (1904- 
igog),  trans,  into  French  by  J.  Pasquier  (1911-1912).  The  most  available 
Catholic  study  of  Luther's  personality  and  career  is  the  scholarly  work 
of  Hartmann  Grisar,  Luther,  3  vols.  (1911-1913),  trans,  from  German  into 
English  by  E.  M.  Lamond,  4  vols.  (1913-1915).  First  Principles  of  the 
Reformation,  ed.  by  Henry  Wace  and  C.  A.  Buchheim  (1885),  contains  an 
English  translation  of  Luther's  "  Theses,"  and  of  his  three  pamphlets  of 
1520.  The  best  edition  of  Luther's  complete  works  is  the  Weimar  edition ; 
English  translations  of  portions  of  his  Table  Talk,  by  William  Hazlitt, 
have  appeared  in  the  Bohn  Library ;  and  Luther's  Correspotidence  and 
Other  Contemporary  Letters  is  now  (19 16)  in  course  of  translation  and  pub- 
lication by  Preserved  Smith.  J.  W.  Richard,  Philip  Melanchthon  (1898) 
is  a  brief  biography  of  one  of  the  most  famous  friends  and  associates  of 
Luther.  For  the  Protestant  Revolt  in  Germany:  E.  F.  Henderson,  A 
Short  History  of  Germany  (1902),  Vol.  I,  ch.  x-xvi,  a  brief  sketch  of  the 
political  and  social  background ;  Johannes  Janssen,  History  of  the  German 
People,  a  monumental  treatise  on  German  social  history  just  before  and 
during  the  revolt,  scholarly  and  very  favorable  to  the  Catholic  Church, 
trans,  into  English  by  M.  A.  Mitchell  and  A.  M.  Christie,  16  vols.  (1896- 
1910) ;  Gottlob  Egelhaaf,  Deutsche  Geschichte  im  sechzehnten  Jahrhundert 
bis  zum  Augsburger  Religionsfrieden,  2  vols.  (1889-1892),  a  Protestant 
rejoinder  to  some  of  the  Catholic  Janssen's  deductions;  Karl  Lamprecht, 
Deutsche  Geschichte,  Vol.  V,  Part  I  (1896),  suggestive  philosophizing; 
Leopold  von  Ranke,  History  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany,  Eng.  trans., 
3  vols.,  a  careful  study,  coming  down  in  the  original  German  to  1555,  but 
stopping  short  in  the  English  form  with  the  year  1 534 ;  Friedrich  von 
Bezold,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Reformation,  2  vols.  (1886-1890),  in  the 
bulky  Oncken  Series,  voluminous  and  moderately  Protestant  in  tone ; 
J.  J.  I.  von  Dollinger,  Die  Reformation,  Hire  innere  Entwicklung  und  ihre 
Wirkungcn,  3  vols.  (1853-1854),  pointing  out  the  opposition  of  many 
educated  people  of  the  sixteenth  century  to  Luther ;  A.  E.  Berger,  Die 
Kidturaufgaben  der  Reformation,  2d  ed.  (1908),  a  study  of  the  cultural 
aspects  of  the  Lutheran  movement,  Protestant  in  tendency  and  opposed 
in  certain  instances  to  the  generalizations  of  Janssen  and  Dollinger ;  J.  S. 
Schapiro,  Social  Reform  and  the  Reformation  (1909),  a  brief  but  very  sugges- 
tive treatment  of  some  of  the  economic  factors  of  the  German  Reforma- 
tion; H.  C.  Vedder,  The  Reformation  in  Germany  (1914),  likewise  stressing 
economic  factors,  and  sympathetic  toward  the  Anabaptists.  For  additional 
facts  concerning  the  estabhshment  of  Lutheranism  in  Scandinavia,  see 
R.  N.  Bain,  Scandinavia,  a  Political  History  of  Denmark,  Norway,  and 
Sweden  from  1513  to  igoo  (1905),  and  John  Wordsworth  (Bishop  of  Salis- 
bury), The  National  Church  of  Sweden  (191 1). 


172  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Zwingli,  Calvin,  and  Calvinism.  The  best  biography  of  Zwingli  in 
English  is  that  of  S.  JNI.  Jackson  (1901),  who  likewise  has  edited  the  Selected 
Works  of  Zwingli;  a  more  exhaustive  biography  in  German  is  Rudolf 
Stahelin,  Huldreich  Zwingli:  sein  Leben  und  Wirken,  2  vols.  (1895-1897). 
Biographies  of  Calvin :  H.  Y.  Reyburn,  John  Calvin :  his  Life,  Letters, 
and  Work  (1914) ;  Williston  Walker,  John  Calvin,  the  Organizer  of  Re- 
formed Protestantism  (1906) ;  Emile  Doumergue,  Jean  Calvin  :  les  hommes 
et  les  choses  de  son  temps,  4  vols.  (1899-1910) ;  L.  Penning,  Life  and  Times 
of  Calvin,  trans,  from  Dutch  by  B.  S.  Berrington  (191 2) ;  William  Barry, 
Calvin,  in  the  "  Catholic  Encyclopaedia."  Many  of  Calvin's  writings 
have  been  published  in  English  translation  by  the  "  Presbyterian  Board 
of  Publication  "  in  Philadelphia,  22  vols,  in  52  (1844-1856),  and  his  In- 
stitutes of  the  Christian  Religion  has  several  times  been  published  in  English. 
H.  M.  Baird,  Theodore  Beza  (1899)  is  a  popular  biography  of  one  of  the 
best-known  friends  and  associates  of  Calvin.  For  Calvinism  in  Switzer- 
land:  W.  D.  McCracken,  The  Rise  of  the  Swiss  Republic,  2d  ed.  (1901) ; 
F.  W.  Kampschulte,  Johann  Calvin,  seine  Kirche  und  sein  Staat  in  Genf, 
2  vols.  (1869-1899).  For  Calvinism  in  France:  H.  M.  Baird,  History  of 
the  Rise  of  the  Huguenots  of  France,  2  vols.  (1S79),  and  by  the  same  author, 
a  warm  partisan  of  Calvinism,  The  Huguenots  and  Henry  of  Navarre,  2  vols. 
(1886) ;  the  brothers  Haag,  France  protestante,  2d  ed.,  10  vols.  (1877- 
1895),  an  exhaustive  history  of  Protestantism  in  France ;  E.  Lavisse  (editor), 
Histoire  de  France,  Vol.  V,  Livre  IX,  by  Henry  Lemonnier  (1904),  most 
recent  and  best.  For  Calvinism  in  Scotland :  P.  H.  Brown,  John  Knox,  a 
Biography,  2  vols.  (1895) ;  Andrew  Lang,  John  Knox  and  the  Reformation 
(1905) ;  John  Herkless  and  R.  K.  Hannay,  The  Archbishops  of  St.  Andrews, 
4  vols.  (1907-1913);  D.  H.  Fleming,  The  Reformation  in  Scotland:  its 
Causes,  Characteristics,  and  Consequences  (1910) ;  John  Macpherson, 
History  of  the  Church  in  Scotland  (1901),  ch.  iii-v. 

The  Protestant  Revolution  in  England.  The  eve  of  the  revolution : 
Frederic  Seebohm,  The  Oxford  Reformers,  3d  ed.  (1887),  a  sympathetic 
treatment  of  Colet,  Erasmus,  and  More ;  F.  A.  (Cardinal)  Gasquet,  The 
Eve  of  the  Reformation  in  England  (1899),  and,  by  the  same  author,  an 
eminent  CathoHc  scholar,  England  under  the  Old  Religion  (191 2).  General 
histories  of  the  English  Reformation :  H.  O.  Wakeman,  An  Introduction 
to  the  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  8th  ed.  (1914),  ch.  x-xiv,  the  best 
brief  "  High  Church  "  survey;  J.  R.  Green,  Short  History  of  the  English 
People,  new  iUust.  ed.  by  C.  H.  Firth  (1913),  ch.  vi,  vii,  a  popular  "  Low 
Church  "  view ;  W.  R.  W.  Stephens  and  William  Hunt  (editors),  A  History 
of  the  Church  of  England,  Vols.  IV  (1902)  and  V  (1904)  by  James  Gairdner 
and  W.  H.  Frere  respectively ;  James  Gairdner,  Lollardy  and  the  Reforma- 
tion in  England,  4  vols.  (1908-1913),  the  last  word  of  an  eminent  authority 
on  the  period,  who  was  convinced  of  the  revolutionary  character  of  the 
English  Reformation ;  John  Lingard,  History  of  England  to  1688,  Vols. 
IV-VI,  the  standard  Roman  Catholic  work ;  R.  W.  Dixon,  History  of  the 
Church  of  England  from  the  Abolition  of  the  Roman  Jurisdiction,  6  vols. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  173 

(1878-1902),  a  thorough  treatnicnL  from  the  High  Anglican  position ; 
H.  W.  Clark,  History  of  English  Nonconformity,  Vol.  I  (191 1),  Book  I, 
valuable  for  the  history  of  the  radical  Protestants ;  Henry  Gee  and  W.  J. 
Hardy.  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History  (1896),  an  ad- 
mirable collection  of  ofhcial  pronouncements.  Valuable  special  works 
and  monographs:  C.  B.  Lumsden,  The  Dawn  of  Modern  England,  being  a 
History  of  the  Reformation-  in  England,  ijOQ~ij2j  (19 10),  pronouncedly 
Roman  Catholic  in  tone;  Martin  Hume,  The  Wives  of  Henry  VIII  (1905) ; 
F.  A.  (Cardinal)  Gasquet,  Henry  VIII  and  the  English  Monasteries,  3d 
ed.,  2  vols.  (18S8),  popular  ed.  in  i  vol.  (1902) ;  R.  B.  Merriman,  Life  and 
Letters  of  Thomas  Cromwell,  2  vols.  (1902),  a  standard  work;  Dom  Bede 
Camm,  Lives  of  the  English  Martyrs  (1904),  with  special  reference  to  Roman 
Cathohcs  under  Henry  \'III ;  A.  F.  Pollard,^  Life  of  Cranmer  (1904), 
scholarly  and  sympathetic,  and,  by  the  same  author,  England  under  Pro- 
tector Somerset  (1900),  distinctly  apologetic;  Frances  Rose-Troup,  The 
Western  Rebellion  of  ij4Q  (1913),  a  study  of  an  unsuccessful  popular  up- 
rising against  religious  innovations;  M.  J.  Stone,  Mary  I,  Queen  of  Eng- 
land (1901),  an  apology  for  Mary  Tudor;  John  Foxe  (1516-1587),  Acts 
a)id  Monuments  of  the  Church,  popularly  known  as  the  Book  of  Martyrs, 
the  chief  contemporary  account  of  the  Marian  persecutions,  uncritical 
and  naturally  strongly  biased ;  R.  G.  Usher,  The  Reconstruction  of  the 
English  Church,  2  vols.  (1910),  a  popular  account  of  the  changes  under 
Elizabeth  and  James  I ;  H.  N.  Birt,  The  Elizabethan  Religious  Settlement 
(1Q07),  from  the  Roman  Catholic  standpoint;  G.  E.  Phillips,  The  Extinc- 
tion of  the  Ancient  Hierarchy,  an  Account  of  the  Death  in  Prison  of  the  Eleven 
Bishops  Honored  at  Rome  amongst  the  Martyrs  of  the  Elizabethan  Persecu- 
tion (1905),  also  Roman  Catholic  ;  A.  O.  Meyer,  England  und  die  katholische 
Kirche  unter  Elisabeth  und  den  Stuarts,  Vol.  I  (191 1),  Eng.  trans,  by  J.  R. 
McKee  (1915),  based  in  part  on  use  of  source-material  in  the  Vatican 
Library;  Martin  Hume,  Treason  a)td  Plot  (1901),  deals  with  the  struggles 
of  the  Roman  Catholics  for  supremacy  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth ;  E.  L. 
Taunton,  The  History  of  the  Jesuits  in  England,  ij8o-i//'j  (1901)  ;  Richard 
Simpson,  Life  of  Campion  (1867),  an  account  of  a  devoted  Jesuit  who  suffered 
martyrdom  under  Elizabeth ;  Champlin  Burrage,  The  Early  English  Dis- 
senters in  the  Light  of  Recent  Research,  1^50-1641,  2  vols.  (1912). 

The  Reformation  within  the  Catholic  Church.  Brief  narratives  :  William 
Barry,  The  Papacy  and  Modern  Times  (191 1),  in  "Home  University  Li- 
brary," ch.  i-iii;  A.  W.  Ward,  The  Counter  Reformation  (1889)  in  "  Epochs 
of  Church  History"  Series;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  HI  (1905), 
ch.  xiii  by  Ugo  (Count)  Balzani  on  "  Rome  under  Sixtus  V."  Longer 
accounts :  G.  V.  Jourdan,  The  Movement  towards  Catholic  Reform  in  the 
Early  Sixteenth  Century,  1496-1^36  (1914) ;  K.  W.  Maurenbrecher,  Ge- 
schichte  der  katholischen  Reformation,  Vol.  I  (1880),  excellent  down  to  1534 

1  See  also  other  works  of  A.  F.  Pollard  listed  in  bibliography  appended  to 
Chapter  III,  p.  no,  above. 


174  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

but  never  completed ;  J.  A.  Symonds,  Renaissance  in  Italy,  Vols.  VI  and 
VII,  The  Catholic  Reaction,  replete  with  inaccuracy,  bias,  and  prejudice. 
The  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  have  been  translated  by  J. 
Waterworth,  new  ed.  (1896),  and  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
by  J.  Donovan  (1829).  Nicholas  Hilling,  Procedure  at  the  Roman  Curia, 
2d  ed.  (1909),  contains  a  concise  account  of  the  "  congregations  "  and 
other  reformed  agencies  of  administration  introduced  into  church  gov- 
ernment in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.  The  famous  Auto- 
biography of  St.  Ignatius  Loyola  has  been  trans,  and  ed.  by  J.  F.  X.  O'Conor 
(1900),  and  the  text  of  his  Spiritual  Exercises,  trans,  from  Spanish  into 
English,  has  been  published  by  Joseph  Rickaby  (1915).  See  Stewart  Rose 
(Lady  Buchan),  St.  Ignatius  Loyola  and  the  Early  Jesuits,  ed.  by  W.  H.  Eyre 
(1891) ;  Francis  Thompson,  Life  of  Saint  Ignatius  (1910) ;  T.  A.  Hughes, 
Loyola  and  the  Educational  System  of  the  Jesuits  (1892).  Monumental 
national  histories  of  the  Jesuits  are  now  (1916)  appearing  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Order:  for  Germany,  by  Bernhard  Duhr,  Vol.  I  (1907),  Vol.  II 
(191,3) ;  for  Italy,  by  Pietro  Tacchi  Venturi,  Vol.  I  (1910) ;  for  France, 
by  Henri  Fouqueray,  Vol.  I  (1910),  Vol.  II  (1913) ;  for  Paraguay,  by 
Pablo  Pastells,  Vol.  I  (1912);  for  North  America,  by  Thomas  Hughes, 
3  vols.  (1907-1910) ;  for  Spain,  by  Antonio  Astrain,  Vols.  I-IV  (1902- 
1913).  Concerning  the  Index,  see  G.  H.  Putnam,  The  Censorship  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  and  its  Influence  upon  the  Production  and  Distribution  of 
Literature,  2  vols.  (1907).  On  the  Inquisition,  see  H.  C.  Lea,  A  History 
of  the  Inqidsition  of  Spain,  4  vols.  (1907),  and,  by  the  same  author.  The 
Inquisition  in  the  Spanish  Dependencies  (1908),  on  the  whole  a  dark  pic- 
ture ;  and,  for  a  Catholic  account,  Elphege  Vacandard,  The  Inquisition: 
a  Critical  and  Historical  Study  of  the  Coercive  Power  of  the  Church,  trans, 
by  B.  L.  Conway  (1908). 

For  the  outcome  of  the  Protestant  Revolt  and  the  Catholic  Reformation 
from  the  theological  standpoint,  see  Adolph  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma, 
Eng.  trans..  Vol.  VII  (1900).  Charles  Beard,  The  Reformation  of  the 
Sixteenth  Century  in  its  Relation  to  Modern  Thought  and  Knowledge  (1883) 
is  a  strongly  Protestant  estimate  of  the  significance  of  the  whole  move- 
ment. J.  Balmes,  European  Civilization:  Protestantism  and  Catholicity 
Compared  in  their  Ejects  on  the  Civilization  of  Europe  (1850),  though  old, 
is  a  suggestive  resume  from  the  Catholic  standpoint. 


CHAPTER   V 

THE   CULTURE    OF   THE    SIXTEENTH    CENTURY 

"Culture"  is  a  word  generally  used  to  denote  learning  and 
refinement  in  manners  and  art.     The  development  of  „  ^  , 

...  p  1111  Culture 

culture  —  the  acquisition  of  new  knowledge  and  the 
creation  of  beautiful  things  —  is  ordinarily  the  work  of  a  com- 
paratively small  number  of  scientists  and  artists.  Now  if  in  any 
particular  period  or  among  any  special  people,  we  find  a  rela- 
tively larger  group  of  intellectual  leaders  who  succeed  in 
estabhshing  an  important  educated  class  and  in  making  per- 
manent contributions  to  the  civiHzation  of  posterity,  then  we 
say  that  it  is  a  cultured  century  or  a  cultured  nation. 

All  races  and  all  generations  have  had  some  kind  of  culture, 
but  within  the  recorded  history  of  humanity,  certain  peoples 
and  certain  centuries  stand  out  most  distinctly  as  in-  Greek 
fluencing  its  evolution.  Thus,  the  Greeks  of  the  Culture 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries  before  Christ  gathered  together  and 
handed  down  to  us  all  manner  of  speculation  about  the  nature 
of  the  universe,  all  manner  of  hypothetical  answers  to  the  eternal 
questions  —  Whence  do  we  come,  What  are  we  doing,  Where 
do  we  go  ?  —  and  this  was  the  foundation  of  modern  philosophy 
and  metaphysics.  From  the  same  Greeks  came  our  geometry 
and  the  rudiments  of  our  sciences  of  astronomy  and  medicine. 
It  was  they  who  gave  us  the  model  for  nearly  every  form  of 
literature  —  dramatic,  epic,  and  lyric  poetry,  dialogues,  oratory, 
history  —  and  in  their  well-proportioned  temples,  in  their 
balanced  columns  and  elaborate  friezes,  in  their  marble  chisel- 
ings  of  the  perfect  human  form,  they  fashioned  for  us  forever 
the  classical  expression  of  art. 

Still  in  ancient  times,  the  Romans  developed  classical  archi- 
tecture in  the  great  triumphal  arches  and  in  the  high-domed 

175 


176  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

public  buildings  which  strewed  their  empire.  They  adapted  the 
fine  forms  of  Greek  literature  to  their  own  more  pompous,  but 
Roman  less  subtle,  Latin  language.     They  devised  a  code  of 

Culture  lo^^  g^j^^j  ^  legal  system  which  made  them  in  a  real 
sense  the  teachers  of  order  and  the  founders  of  the  modern  study 
of  law. 

The  Mohammedans,  too,  at  the  very  time  when  the  Chris- 
tians of  western  Europe  were  neglecting  much  of  the  ancient 
Moham-  heritage,  kept  aUve  the  traditions  of  Greek  philoso- 
medan  phy,  mathematics,  astronomy,  and  medicine.     From 

^^^^^  eastern    Asia    they    borrowed     algebra,    the    Arabic 

numerals,  and  the  compass,  and,  in  their  own  great  cities  of 
Bagdad,  Damascus,  and  Cordova,  they  themselves  developed 
the  curiously  woven  curtains  and  rugs,  the  strangely  wrought 
blades  and  metalHc  ornaments,  the  luxurious  dwelHngs  and 
graceful  minarets  which  distinguish  Arabic  or  Mohammedan 
art.  , 

In  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  —  the  height  of  the 
middle  ages  —  cam^e  a  wonderful  outburst  of  intellectual  and 
Medieval  artistic  activity.  Under  the  immediate  auspices  of  the 
Culture  Catholic  Church  it  brought  forth  abundantly  a  pe- 
culiarly Christian  culture.  Renewed  acquaintance  with  Greek 
philosophy,  especially  with  that  of  Aristotle,  was  joined  with  a 
hvely  religious  faith  to  produce  the  so-called  scholastic  philoso- 
phy and  theology.  Great  institutions  of  higher  learning  —  the 
universities  —  were  now  founded,  in  which  centered  the  revived 
study  not  only  of  philosophy  but  of  law  and  medicine  as  well, 
and  over  which  appeared  the  first  cloud-wrapped  dawn  of 
modern  experimental  science.  And  side  by  side  with  the  sono- 
rous Latin  tongue,  which  long  continued  to  be  used  by  scholars, 
were  formed  the  vernacular  languages  —  German,  EngHsh, 
French,  Italian,  Spanish,  Portuguese,  etc.  —  that  gave  a 
wealth  of  variety  to  reviving  popular  Hterature.  Majestic 
cathedrals  with  pointed  arch  and  flying  buttress,  with  lofty 
spire  and  dehcate  tracery,  wonderful  wood  carvings,  illumi- 
nated manuscripts,  quaint  gargoyles,  myriad  statues  of  saints 
and  martyrs,  delicately  colored  paintings  of  surpassing  beauty 
—  all  betokened  the  great  Christian,  or  Gothic,  art  of  the 
middle  ages. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  177 

The  educated  person  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  heir  to  all 
these  cultural  periods :    intellectually  and   artistically  he  was 
descended  from  Greeks,  Romans,  Mohammedans,  and 
his  medieval  Christian  forbears.      But  the  sixteenth  Elements 
century   itself   added    cultural    contributions    to    the  in  Culture 
original  store,   which  help   to   explain  not  only   the  century^" 
social,  political,   and  ecclesiastical  activities  of  that 
time  but  also  many  of  our  present-day  actions  and  ideas.     The 
essentially   new   factors   in    sixteenth-century   culture   may   be 
reckoned  as  (i)  the  diffusion  of  knowledge  as  a  result  of  the  in- 
vention of  printing;    (2)  the  development  of  hterary  criticism 
by  means  of  humanism ;   (3)  a  golden  age  of  painting  and  archi- 
tecture ;    (4)  the  flowering  of  national  hterature ;  (5)  the  begin- 
nings of  m.odern  natural  science. 

THE   INVENTION  OF   PRINTING 

The  present  day  is  notably  distinguished  by  the  prevalence 
of  enormous  numbers  of  printed  books,  periodicals,  and  news- 
papers. Yet  this  very  printing,  which  seems  so  commonplace 
to  us  now,  has  had,  in  all,  but  a  comparatively  brief  existence. 
From  the  earHest  recorded  history  up  to  less  than  five  hundred 
years  ago  every  book  in  Europe  ^  was  laboriously  written  by 
hand,^  and,  although  copyists  acquired  an  astonishing  swiftness 
in  reproducing  books,  libraries  of  any  size  were  the  property 
exclusively  of  rich  institutions  or  wealthy  individuals.  It  was 
at  the  beginning  of  modern  times  that  the  invention  of  printing 
revolutionized  intellectual  history. 

Printing  is  an  extremely  complicated  process,  and  it  is  small 
wonder  that  centuries  of  human  progress  elapsed  before  its  in- 
vention was  complete.  Among  the  most  essential  elements  of 
the  perfected  process  are  movable  type  with  which  the  impression 
is  made,  and  paper,  on  which  it  is  made.  A  few  facts  may  be 
conveniently  culled  from  the  long  involved  story  of  the  develop- 
ment of  each  of  these  elements. 

^  For  an  account  of  early  printing  in  China,  Japan,  and  Korea,  see  the  inform- 
ing article  "Typography"  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica,  nth  edition,  Vol. 
XXVII,  p.  510. 

^  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  meaning  of  our  present  word  "manuscript,"  which 
is  derived  from  the  Latin —  manii  scrlptum  ("written  by  hand"). 

N 


1 78  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

For  their  manuscripts  the  Greeks  and  Romans  had  used 
papyrus,  the  prepared  fiber  of  a  tough  reed  which  grew  in  the 
Develop-  Valley  of  the  Nile  River.  This  papyrus  was  very  ex- 
ment  of  pensive  and  heavy,  and  not  at  all  suitable  for  print- 
^^^'^  ing.     Parchment,  the  dressed  skins  of  certain  animals, 

especially  sheep,  which  became  the  standard  material  for  the 
hand-written  documents  of  the  middle  ages,  was  extremely 
durable,  but  Hke  papyrus,  it  was  costly,  unwieldy,  and  ill  adapted 
for  printing. 

The  forerunner  of  modern  European  paper  was  probably  that 
which  the  Chinese  made  from  silk  as  early  as  the  second  century 
before  Christ.  For  silk  the  Mohammedans  at  Mecca  and 
Damascus  in  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  appear  to  have 
substituted  cotton,  and  this  so-called  Damascus  paper  was  later 
imported  into  Greece  and  southern  Italy  and  into  Spain.  In 
the  latter  country  the  native-grown  hemp  and  flax  were  again 
substituted  for  cotton,  and  the  resulting  Hnen  paper  was  used 
considerably  in  Castile  in  the  thirteenth  century  and  thence 
penetrated  across  the  Pyrenees  into  France  and  gradually  all 
over  western  and  central  Europe.  Parchment,  however,  for  a 
long  time  kept  its  preeminence  over  silk,  cotton,  or  linen  paper, 
because  of  its  greater  firmness  and  durabihty,  and  notaries  were 
long  forbidden  to  use  any  other  substance  in  their  official  writ- 
ings. Not  until  the  second  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  was 
assured  the  triumph  of  modern  paper,^  as  distinct  from  papyrus 
or  parchment,  when  printing,  then  on  the  threshold  of  its  career, 
demanded  a  substance  of  moderate  price  that  would  easily 
receive  the  impression  of  movable  type. 

The  idea  of  movable  type  was  derived  from  an  older  practice 
of  carving  reverse  letters  or  even  whole  inscriptions  upon  blocks 
_     ,  of  wood  so  that  when  they  were  inked  and  appHed  to 

Develop-  .  .  •    ,     ,  111  ,  .  . 

ment  of         writmg  material  they  would  leave  a  clear  impression. 

Movable  Medieval  kings  and  princes  frequently  had  their  sig- 
natures cut  on  these  blocks  of  wood  or  metal,  in  order 
to  impress  them  on  charters,  and  a  kind  of  engraving  was  em- 
ployed to  reproduce  pictures  or  written  pages  as  early  as  the 
twelfth  century. 

It  was  a  natural  but  slow  evolution  from  block-impressing  to 

^  The  word  "paper"  is  derived  from  the  ancient  "papyrus." 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  179 

the  practice  of  casting  individual  letters  in  separate  little  pieces 
of  metal,  all  of  the  same  height  and  thickness,  and  then  ar- 
ranging them  in  any  desired  sequence  for  printing.  The  great 
advantage  of  movable  type  over  the  blocks  was  the  infinite 
variety  of  work  which  could  be  done  by  simply  setting  and  re- 
setting the  type. 

The  actual  history  of  the  transition  from  the  use  of  blocks  to 
movable  type  —  the  real  invention  of  modern  printing  —  is 
shrouded  in  a  good  deal  of  mystery  and  dispute.  It  now  appears 
likely  that  by  the  year  1450,  an  obscure  Lourens  Coster  of  the 
Dutch  town  of  Haarlem  had  devised  movable  type,  that  Coster's 
invention  was  being  utihzed  by  a  certain  Johan  Gutenberg  in 
the  German  city  of  ISIainz,  and  that  improvements  were  being 
added  by  various  other  contemporaries.  Papal  letters  of  in- 
dulgence and  a  version  of  the  Bible,  both  printed  in  1454,  are 
the  earUest  monuments  of  the  new  art. 

Slowly  evolved,  the  marvelous  art,  once  thoroughly  de- 
veloped, spread  with  almost  Hghtning  rapidity  from  Mainz 
throughout  the  Germanics,  the  Italian  states,  France,  and 
England,  —  in  fact,  throughout  all  Christian  Europe.  It 
was  welcomed  by  scholars  and  applauded  by  popes.  Print- 
ing presses  were  erected  at  Rome  in  1466,  and  book-pub- 
Hshing  speedily  became  an  honorable  and  lucrative  business 
in  every  large  city.  Thus,  at  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  scholarly  Aldus  Manutius  was  operating  in 
Venice  the  famous  Aldine  press,  whose  beautiful  editions  of 
the  Greek  and  Latin  classics  are  still  esteemed  as  masterpieces 
of  the  printer's  art. 

The  early  printers  fashioned  the  characters  of  their  type  after 
the  letters  that  the  scribes  had  used  in  long-hand  writing.  Dif- 
ferent kinds  of  common  hand-writing  gave  rise,  there- 
fore, to  such  varieties  of  type  as  the  heavy  black-faced 
Gothic  that  prevailed  in  the  Germanics  or  the  several  adapta- 
tions of  the  clear,  neat  Roman  characters  which  predominated  in 
southern  Europe  and  in  England.  The  compressed  "italic" 
type  was  devised  in  the  Aldine  press  in  Venice  to  enable  the 
pubhsher  to  crowd  more  words  upon  a  page. 

A  constant  development  of  the  new  art  characterized  the  six- 
teenth century,  and  at  least  three  remarkable  results  became 


i8o  HISTORY   OF   MODERN  EUROPE 

evident.  (i)  There  was  an  almost  incalculable  increase  in 
the  supply  of  books.  Under  earher  conditions,  a  skilled  and 
Results  of  conscientious  copyist  might,  by  prodigious  toil,  pro- 
invention  duce  two  books  in  a  year.  Now,  in  a  single  year  of 
o  nnting  ^j^^  sixteenth  century,  some  24,000  copies  of  one  of 
Erasmus's  books  were  struck  off  by  one  printing  press. 

(2)  This  indirectly  increased  the  demand  for  books.  By 
lessening  the  expense  of  books  and  enabhng  at  least  all  members 
of  the  middle  class,  as  well  as  nobles  and  princes,  to  possess 
private  hbraries,  printing  became  the  most  powerful  means  of 
diffusing  knowledge  and  broadening  education. 

(3)  A  greater  degree  of  accuracy  was  guaranteed  by  printing 
than  by  manual  copying.  Before  the  invention  of  printing,  it 
was  well-nigh  impossible  to  secure  two  copies  of  any  work  that 
would  be  exactly  alike.  Now,  the  constant  proof-reading  and 
the  fact  that  an  entire  edition  was  printed  from  the  same  type 
were  securities  against  the  anciently  recurring  faults  of  forgery 
or  of  error. 

HUMANISM 

Printing,  the  invention  of  which  has  just  been  described,  was 
the  new  vehicle  of  expression  for  the  ideas  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. These  ideas  centered  in  something  which  commonly  is 
called  "humanism."  To  appreciate  precisely  what  humanism 
means  —  to  understand  the  dominant  intellectual  interests  of 
the  educated  people  of  the  sixteenth  century  —  it  will  be  neces- 
sary first  to  turn  back  some  two  hundred  years  earlier  and  say 
a  few  words  about  the  first  great  humanist,  Francesco  Petrarca, 
or,  as  he  is  known  to  us,  Petrarch. 

The  name  of  Petrarch,  who  flourished  in  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury (1304- 1 3 74),  has  been  made  familiar  to  most  of  us  by  sen- 
timentahsts  or  by  Hterary  scholars  who  in  the  one  case 

Petrarch 

"  the  have  pitied  his  loves  and  his  passions  or  in  the  other 

Father  of       have  admired  the  grace  and  form  of  his  Italian  son- 

Humamsm'  °  r    i  •  -r.  1     ^ 

nets.  But  to  the  student  of  history  Petrarch  has 
seemed  even  more  important  as  the  reflection,  if  not  the  source, 
of  a  brilliant  intellectual  movement,  which,  taking  rise  in  his 
century,  was  to  grow  in  brightness  in  the  fifteenth  and  flood  the 
sixteenth  with  resplendent  hght. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  i8i 

In  some  respects  Petrarch  was  a  topical  product  of  the  four- 
teenth century.  He  was  in  close  touch  with  the  great  medieval 
Christian  culture  of  his  day.  He  held  papal  ofhce  at  Avignon 
in  France.  He  was  pious  and  "old-fashioned"  in  many  of  his 
religious  views,  especially  in  his  dislike  for  heretics.  Moreover, 
he  wrote  what  he  professed  to  be  his  best  work  in  Latin  and 
expressed  naught  but  contempt  for  the  new  Italian  language, 
which,  under  the  immortal  Dante,  had  already  acquired  literary 
polish.^  He  showed  no  interest  in  natural  science  or  in  the  phys- 
ical world  about  him  —  no  sympathy  for  any  novelty. 

Yet  despite  a  good  deal  of  natural  conservatism,  Petrarch 
added  one  significant  element  to  the  former  medieval  culture. 
That  was  an  appreciation,  amounting  almost  to  worship,  of  the 
pagan  Greek  and  Latin  Hterature.  Nor  was  he  interested  in 
antique  things  because  they  supported  his  theology  or  incul- 
cated Christian  morals ;  his  fondness  for  them  was  simply  and 
solely  because  they  were  inherently  interesting.  In  a  multitude 
of  poKshed  Latin  letters  and  in  many  of  his  poems,  as  well  as 
by  daily  example  and  precept  to  his  admiring  contemporaries, 
he  preached  the  revival  of  the  classics. 

This  one  obsessing  idea  of  Petrarch  carried  with  it  several 
corollaries  which  constituted  the  essence  of  humanism  and  pro- 
foundly affected  European  thought  for  several  genera- 
tions after  the  Italian  poet.     They  may  be  enumer-  isticsof 

ated  as  follows  :  Petrarch's 

,   ,  1      1    r  1        •  Humanism 

(i)  Petrarch  felt  as  no  nian_ had^  f elt  smce  pagan 
days  the  pleasure  of  mere  human  life^  —  the" ''  juy^oi  H\dng." 
This,  he  believed,  was  not  in  opposition  to  the  Christian  religion, 
although  it  contradicted  the  basis  of  ascetic  Hfe.     He  remained  a 
Cathohc  Christian,  but  he  assailed  the  monks. 

(2)  Petrarch  possessed  a  confidence  in  himself,  which  in  the 
constant  repetition  in  his  writings  of  first-person  pronouns  par- 
took of  boastfulness.  He  replaced  a  reHance  upon  Divine  Provi- 
dence by  a  sense  of  his  own  human  ability  and  power. 

(3)  Petrarch  entertained  a  clear  notion  of  a  living  bond  be- 
tween himself  and  men  of  like  sort  in  the  ancient  world.     Greek 

^  Ironically  enough,  it  was  not  his  Latin  writings  but  his  beautiful  Italian  son- 
nets, of  which  he  confessed  to  be  ashamed,  that  have  preserved  the  popular  fame 
of  Petrarch  to  the  present  day. 


i82  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  Roman  civilization  was  to  him  no  dead  and  buried  antiq- 
uity, but  its  poets  and  thinkers  lived  again  as  if  they  were  his 
neighbors.  His  love  for  the  past  amounted  almost  to  an  ecstatic 
enthusiasm. 

(4)  Petrarch  tremendously  influenced  his  contemporaries.  He 
was  no  local,  or  even  national,  figure.  He  was  revered  and  re- 
spected as  "  the  scholar  of  Europe."  Kings  vied  with  each  other 
in  heaping  benefits  upon  him.  The  Venetian  senate  gave  him 
the  freedom  of  the  city.  Both  the  University  of  Paris  and  the 
municipaHty  of  Rome  crowned  him  with  laurel. 

The  admirers  and  disciples  of  Petrarch  were  attracted  by  the 
fresh  and  original  human  ideas  of  life  with  which  such  classical 
writers  as  Virgil,  Horace,  and  Cicero  overflowed.  This 
ism^^nd  new-found  charm  the  scholars  called  humanity  {hu- 
the"Hu-  manitas)  and  themselves  they  styled  "humanists." 
De&dtions  Their  studies,  which  comprised  the  Greek  and  Latin 
languages  and  literatures,  and,  incidentally,  profane 
history,  were  the  humanities  or  "letters"  {litterce  humaniores), 
and  the  pursuit  of  them  was  humanism. 

Petrarch  himself  was  a  serious  Latin  scholar  but  knew  Greek 
quite  indifferently.  About  the  close  of  his  century,  however, 
Greek  teachers  came  in  considerable  numbers  from  Constanti- 
nople and  Greece  across  the  Adriatic  to  Italy,  and  a  certain 
Chrysoloras  set  up  an  influential  Greek  school  at  Florence.^ 
Thenceforth,  the  study  of  both  Latin  and  Greek  went  on  apace. 
Monasteries  were  searched  for  old  manuscripts;  hbraries  for 
the  classics  were  established ;  many  an  ancient  masterpiece, 
long  lost,  was  now  recovered  and  treasured  as  fine  gold.^ 

At  first,  humanism  met  with  some  opposition  from  ardent 
churchmen  who  feared  that  the  revival  of  pagan  Hterature  might 
Humanism  ^xert  an  unwholesome  influence  upon  Christianity, 
and  Chris-  But  gradually  the  humanists  came  to  be  tolerated 
tiamty  ^^^   Qwen  cncouraged,  until  several  popes,   notably 

Julius  II  and  Leo  X  at  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
themselves  espoused  the  cause  of  humanism.  The  father  of 
Leo  X  was  the  celebrated  Lorenzo  de'  Medici,  who  subsidized 

1  This  was  before  the  capture. of  Constantinople  by  the  Turks  in  1453. 
^  It  was  during  this  time  that  long-lost  writings  of  Tacitus,  Cicero,  Quintilian, 
Plautus,  Lucretius,  etc.,  were  rediscovered. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  183 

humanists  and  established  the  great  Florentine  library  of  Greek 
and  Latin  classics ;  and  the  pope  proved  himself  at  once  the 
patron  and  exemplar  of  the  new  learning  :  he  enjoyed  music  and 
the  theater,  art  and  poetry,  the  masterpieces  of  the  ancients 
and  the  creations  of  his  humanistic  contemporaries,  the  spiritual 
and  the  witty  —  life  in  every  form. 

The  zeal  for  humanism  reached  its  highest  pitch  in  Italy  in 
the  fifteenth  century  and  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth,  but  it 
gradually  gained  entrance  into  other  countries  and  at  spread  of 
length  became  the  intellectual  spirit  of  sixteenth-cen-  Humanism 
tury  Europe.  Greek  was  first  taught  both  in  England  and  in 
France  about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century.  The  Italian 
expeditions  of  the  French  kings  Charles  VIII,  Louis  XII,  and 
Francis  I,  1494-1547,  served  to  familiarize  Frenchmen  with 
humanism.  And  the  rise  of  important  new  German  universi- 
ties called  humanists  to  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  As  has  been 
said,  humanism  dominated  all  Christian  Europe  in  the  sixteenth 
century. 

Towering  above   all   his   contemporaries  was   Erasmus,    the 
foremost  humanist  and  the  intellectual  arbiter  of  the  sixteenth 
century.     Erasmus  (1466-1536)  was  a  native  of  Rot-  Erasmus 
terdam  in  Holland,  but  throughout  a  long  and  studi-  Chief 
ous  life  he  lived  for  a  time  in  Germany,  France,  Eng-  of"he 
land,  Italy,  and  Switzerland.     He  took  holy  orders  Sixteenth 
in  the  Church  and  secured  the  degree  of  doctor  of     ^°  ^^^ 
sacred  theology,  but  it  was  as  a  lover  of  books  and  a  prolific 
writer  that  he  earned  his  title  to  fame.     Erasmus,  to  an  even 
greater   degree   than   Petrarch,    became   a   great   international 
figure  —  the  scholar  of  Europe.     He  corresponded  with  every 
important  writer  of  his  generation,  and  he  was  on  terms  of  per- 
sonal friendship  with  Aldus  Manutius,  the  famous  publisher  of 
Venice,  with  Sir  Thomas  More,  the  distinguished  statesman  and 
scholar  of  England,  with  Pope  Leo  X,  with  Francis  I  of  France, 
and  with  Hciiry  VIII  of  England.     For  a  time  he  presided  at 
Paris  over  the  new  College  of  France. 

A  part  of  the  work  of  Erasmus  —  his  Greek  edition  of  the 
New  Testament  and  his  Praise  of  Folly  —  has  already  been 
mentioned.  In  a  series  of  satirical  dialogues  —  the  Adages  and 
the  Colloquies  —  he  displayed  a  brilliant  intellect  and  a  sparkling 


1 84  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

wit.  With  quip  and  jest  he  made  Hght  of  the  ignorance  and 
creduhty  of  many  clergymen,  especially  of  the  monks.  He 
laughed  at  every  one,  himself  included.  "Literary  people,"  said 
he,  ''resemble  the  great  figured  tapestries  of  Flanders,  which 
produce  effect  only  when  seen  from  the  distance." 

At  first  Erasmus  was  friendly  with  Luther,  but  as  he  strongly 
disapproved  of  rebellion  against  the  Church,  he  sub- 

Humamsm  . 

and  sequently  assailed  Luther  and  the  whole  Protestant 

Protes-  movement.     He  remained  outside  the  group  of  radical 

tantism  ,         ,  .     -  . 

reformers,  to  the  end  devoted  to  his  favorite  authors_, 
simply  a  lover  of  good  Latin. 

Perhaps  the  chief  reason  why  Erasmus  opposed  Protestantism 
was  because  he  imagined  that  the  theological  tempest  which 
LutRer  aroused  all  over  Catholic  Europe  would  destroy  fair- 
minded  scholarship  —  the  very  essence  of  humanism.  Be  that 
as  it  may,  the  leading  humanists  of  Europe  —  More  in  England, 
Helgesen  in  Denmark,  and  Erasmus  himself  —  remained  Catho- 
lic. And  while  many  of  the  sixteenth-century  humanists  of 
Italy  grew  skeptical  regarding  all  religion,  their  country,  as  we 
have  seen,  did  not  become  Protestant  but  adhered  to  the  Roman 
Church. 

Gradually,  as  the  sixteenth  century  advanced,  many  persons 
who  in  an  earlier  generation  would  have  applied  their  minds  to 
Decline  of  the  study  of  Latin  or  Greek,  now  devoted  themselves 
Humanism  ^q  theological  discussion  or  moral  exposition.  The 
religious  differences  between  Catholics  and  Protestants,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  refinements  of  dispute  between  Calvinists  and 
Lutherans  or  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists,  absorbed 
much  of  the  mental  energy  of  the  time  and  seriously  distracted 
the  humanists.  In  fact,  we  may  say  that,  from  the  second  half 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  humanism  as  an  independent  intel- 
lectual interest  slowly  but  steadily  declined.  Nevertheless,  it 
was  not  lost,  for  it  was  merged  with  other  interests,  and  with 
them. has  been  preserved  ever  since. 

Humanism,  whose  seed  was  sown  by  Petrarch  in  the  fourteenth 
century  and  whose  fruit  was  plucked  by  Erasmus  in  the  six- 
teenth, still  lives  in  higher  education  throughout  Europe  and 
America.  The  historical  "humanities"  —  Latin,  Greek,  and 
history  —  are  still  taught  in  college  and  in  high  school.     They 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN  EUROPE  185 

constitute  the  contribution  of  the  dominant  intellectual  interest 
of  the  sixteenth  century. 

ART  IN  THE   SIXTEENTH   CENTURY 

The  effect  of  the  revived  interest  in  Greek  and  Roman  cul- 
ture, which,  as  we  have  seen,  dominated  European  thought 
from   the  fourteenth   to  the  sixteenth  century,  was  „ 

r  1  1      •     !•  1  •        T  1  IT        r  •        Humanism 

felt  not  only  ni  hterature  and  m  the  outward  life  of  its  and  the 
devotees  —  in  ransacking  monasteries  for  lost  manu-  Renaissance 

.   .      ,,  ,    .  .  ,  .  ,   ,       of  Art 

scripts,  m  critically  studying  ancient  learning,  and  m 
consciously    imitating    antique    behavior  —  but   likewise    in    a 
marvelous  and  many-sided  development  of  art. 

The  art  of  the  middle  ages  had  been  essentially  Christian  — • 
it  sprang  from  the  doctrine  and  devotions  of  the  Catholic  Church 
and  was  inextricably  bound  up  with  Christian  life.  The  grace- 
ful Gothic  cathedrals,  pointing  their  roofs  and  airy  spires  in 
heavenly  aspiration,  the  fantastic  and  mysterious  carvings  of 
wood  or  stone,  the  imaginative  portraiture  of  saintly  heroes  and 
heroines  as  well  as  of  the  subHme  story  of  the  fall  and  redemp- 
tion of  the  human  race,  the  richly  stained  glass,  and  the  spiritual 
organ  music  —  all  betokened  the  supreme  thought  of  medieval 
Christianity.  But  humanism  recalled  to  men's  minds  the  pre- 
vious existence  of  an  art  simpler  and  more  restrained,  if  less 
ethereal.  The  reading  of  Greek  and  Latin  writers  heightened 
an  esteem  for  pagan  culture  in  all  its  phases. 

Therefore,  European  art  underwent  a  transformation  in  the 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries.  While  much  of  the  distinc- 
tively medieval  culture  remained,  civilization  was  enriched  by 
a  revival  of  classical  art.  The  painters,  the  sculptors,  and  the 
architects  now  sought  models  not  exclusively  in  their  own 
Christian  masters  but  in  many  cases  in  pagan  Greek  and  Roman 
forms.  Gradually  the  two  Hnes  of  development  were  brought 
together,  and  the  resulting  union  —  the  adaptation  of  classical 
art-forms  to  Christian  uses  —  was  marked  by  an  unparalleled 
outburst  of  artistic  energy. 

From  that  period  of  exuberant  art-expression  in  the  fifteenth 
and  sixteenth  centuries,  our  present-day  love  of  beautiful  things 
has  come  down  in  unbroken  succession.     With  no  exaggeration 


i86  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

it  may  be  said  that  the  sixteenth  century  is  as  much  the  basis 

of  our  modern  artistic  Hfe  as  it  is  the  foundation  of  modern 

Protestantism  or  of  modern  world  empire.     The  revolutions  in 

commerce  and  religion  synchronized  with  the  beginning  of  a 

new  era  in  art.     All  arts  were  affected  —  architecture,  sculpture, 

painting,  engraving,  and  music. 

In  architecture,  the  severely  straight  and  plain  line  of  the 

ancient  Greek  temples  or  the  elegant  gentle  curve  of  the  Roman 

.    , .  dome  was  substituted  for  the  fanciful  lofty  Gothic.     A 

Arcmtecture  . 

rounded  arch  replaced  the  pointed.  And  the  ancient 
Greek  orders  —  Doric,  Ionic,  and  Corinthian  —  were  dragged 
from  oblivion  to  embellish  the  simple  symmetrical  buildings. 
The  newer  architecture  was  used  for  ecclesiastical  and  other 
structures,  reaching  perhaps  its  highest  expression  in  the  vast 
cathedral  of  St.  Peter,  which  was  erected  at  Rome  in  the  six- 
teenth century  under  the  personal  direction  of  great  artists, 
among  whom  Raphael  and  Michelangelo  are  numbered. 

The  revival  of  Greek  and  Roman  architecture,  like  humanism, 
had  its  origin  in  Italy ;  and  in  the  cities  of  the  peninsula,  under 
the  patronage  of  wealthy  princes  and  noble  families, 
it  attained  its  most  general  acceptance.  But,  like 
humanism,  it  spread  to  other  countries,  which  in  turn  it  deeply 
affected.  The  chronic  wars,  in  which  the  petty  Italian  states 
were  engaged  throughout  the  sixteenth  century,  were  attended, 
as  we  have  seen,  by  perpetual  foreign  interference.  But  Italy, 
vanquished  in  politics,  became  the  victor  in  art.  While  her 
towns  surrendered  to  foreign  armies,  her  architects  and  builders 
subdued  Europe  and  brought  the  Christian  countries  for  a  time 
under  her  artistic  sway. 

Thus  in  France  the  revival  was  accelerated  by  the  military 
campaigns  of  Charles  VIII,  Louis  XII,  and  Francis  I,  which  led 
,   ^  to  the  revelation  of  the  architectural  triumphs  in  Italy, 

In  France  ,,.,.  .-  ir 

the  result  bemg  the  importation  of  great  numbers  of 
Italian  designers  and  craftsmen.  Architecture  after  the  Greek 
or  Roman  manner  at  once  became  fashionable.  Long,  horizontal 
lines  appeared  in  many  public  buildings,  of  which  the  celebrated 
palace  of  the  Louvre,  begun  in  the  last  year  of  the  reign  of 
Francis  I  (1546),  and  to-day  the  home  of  one  of  the  world's 
greatest  art  collections,  is  a  conspicuous  example. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  187 

In  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  new  archi- 
tecture similarly  entered  Spain  and  received  encouragement 
from  Philip  II.  About  the  same  time  it  manifested  it-  in  other 
self  in  the  Netherlands  and  in  the  Germanics.  In  Eng-  Countnes 
land,  its  appearance  hardly  took  place  in  the  sixteenth  century: 
it  was  not  until  1619  that  a  famous  architect,  Inigo  Jones  (1573- 
165 1),  designed  and  reared  the  classical  banqueting  house  in 
Whitehall,  and  not  until  the  second  half  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury did  Sir  Christopher  Wren  (163  2-1 7  23),  by  means  of  the 
majestic  St.  Paul's  cathedral  in  London,  render  the  new  archi- 
tecture popular  in  England. 

Sculpture  is  usually  an  attendant  of  architecture,  and  it  is 
not  surprising,  therefore,  that  transformation  of  the  one  should 
be  connected  with  change  in  the  other.     The  new  ^    .  , 

.  .  Sculpture 

movement  showed  itself  in  Italian  sculpture  as  early 

as  the  fourteenth  century,  owing  to  the  influence  of  the  ancient 
monuments  which  still  abounded  throughout  the  peninsula  and 
to  which  the  humanists  attracted  attention.  In  the  fifteenth 
century  archaeological  discoveries  were  made  and  a  special  interest 
fostered  by  the  Florentine  family  of  the  Medici,  who  not  only 
became  enthusiastic  collectors  of  ancient  works  of  art  but  pro- 
moted the  study  of  the  antique  figure.  Sculpture  followed  more 
and  more  the  Greek  and  Roman  traditions  in  form  and  often 
in  subject  as  well.  The  plastic  art  of  Italy  in  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries  was  strikingly  akin  to  that  of  Athens  in  the 
fifth  or  fourth  centuries  before  Christ. 

The  first  great  apostle  of  the  new  sculpture  was  Lorenzo 
Ghiberti  (1378-1455),  whose  marvelous  doors  on  the  baptistery 
at  Florence  elicited  the  comment  of  Michelangelo  that  they  were 
"worthy  of  being  placed  at  the  entrance  of  paradise."  Slightly 
younger  than  Ghiberti  was  Donatello  (i 383-1466),  who,  among 
other  triumphs,  fashioned  the  realistic  statue  of  St.  Mark  in 
Venice.  Luca  della  Robbia  (1400-1482),  with  a  classic  purity  of 
style  and  simpHcity  of  expression,  founded  a  whole  dynasty  of 
sculptors  in  glazed  terra-cotta.  Elaborate  tomb-monuments, 
the  construction  of  which  started  in  the  fifteenth  century,  reached 
their  highest  magnificence  in  the  gorgeous  sixteenth-century 
tomb  of  Giovanni  Galeazzo  Visconti,  the  founder  of  the  princely 
family  of  Visconti  in  Milan.     Michelangelo  himself  was  as  famous 


i88  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

for  his  sculpture  as  for  his  painting  or  his  architecture ;  the 
heroic  head  of  his  David  at  Florence  is  a  work  of  unrivaled 
dignity.  As  the  style  of  classic  sculpture  became  very  popular 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  subjects  were  increasingly  borrowed 
from  pagan  literature.  Monuments  were  erected  to  illustrious 
men  of  ancient  Rome,  and  Greek  mythology  was  once  more 
carved  in  stone. 

The  extension  of  the  new  sculpture  beyond  Italy  was  even 
more  rapid  than  the  spread  of  the  new  architecture.  Henry  VII 
invited  Italian  sculptors  to  England ;  Louis  XII  patronized  the 
great  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  and  Francis  I  brought  him  to  France. 
The  tomb  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  in  Spain  was  fashioned  in 
classic  form.  The  new  sculpture  was  famous  in  Germany  before 
Luther;  in  fact,  it  was  to  be  found  everywhere  in  sixteenth- 
century  Europe. 

Painting  accompanied  sculpture.  Prior  to  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, most  of  the  pictures  were  painted  directly  upon  the  plaster 

_,  .  ,.  walls  of  churches  or  of  sumptuous  dwellings  and  were 

Painting  ^  ^ 

called  frescoes,  although  a  few  were  executed  on 
wooden  panels.  In  the  sixteenth  century,  however,  easel  paint- 
ings —  that  is,  detached  pictures  on  canvas,  wood,  or  other 
material  —  became  common.  The  progress  in  painting  was 
not  so  much  an  imitation  of  classical  models  as  was  the  case  with 
sculpture  and  architecture,  for  the  reason  that  painting,  being 
one  of  the  most  perishable  of  the  arts,  had  preserved  few  of  its 
ancient  Greek  or  Roman  examples.  But  the  artists  who  were 
interested  in  architecture  and  sculpture  were  likewise  naturally 
interested  in  painting ;  and  painting,  bound  by  fewer  antique 
traditions,  reached  a  higher  degree  of  perfection  in  the  sixteenth 
century  than  did  any  of  its  allied  arts. 

Modern  painting  was  born  in  Italy.  In  Italy  it  found  its 
four  great  masters — Leonardo  da  Vinci,  Michelangelo,  Raphael, 
and  Titian.  The  first  two  acquired  as  great  a  fame  in  archi- 
tecture and  in  sculpture  as  in  painting;  the  last  two  were 
primarily  painters. 

Leonardo  da  Vinci  (1452-1519),  a  Florentine  by  birth  and 
training,  was  patronized  in  turn  by  the  Sforza  family  of  Milan, 
by  the  Medici  of  Florence,  and  by  the  French  royal  line.  His 
great  paintings  —  the  Holy  Supper  and  Madonna  Lisa,  usually 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  189 

called  La  Gioconda- — carried  to  a  high  degree  the  art  of  com- 
position and  the  science  of  light  and  shade  and  color.  In  fact, 
Leonardo  was  a  scientific  painter  —  he  carefully  studied  Leonardo 
the  laws  of  perspective  and  painstakingly  carried  ^^  ^'"" 
them  into  practice.  He  was  also  a  remarkable  sculptor,  as  is 
testified  by  his  admirable  horses  in  relief.  As  an  engineer,  too, 
he  built  a  canal  in  northern  Italy  and  constructed  fortifications 
about  Milan.  He  was  a  musician  and  a  natural  philosopher  as 
well.  This  many-sided  man  liked  to  toy  with  mechanical  devices. 
One  day  when  Louis  XII  visited  Milan,  he  was  met  by  a  large 
mechanical  Hon  that  roared  and  then  reared  itself  upon  its 
haunches,  displaying  upon  its  breast  the  coat-of-arms  of  France : 
it  was  the  work  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  Leonardo  influenced  his 
age  perhaps  more  than  any  other  artist.  He  wrote  extensively. 
He  gathered  about  himself  a  large  group  of  disciples.  And  in 
his  last  years  spent  in  France,  as  a  pensioner  of  Francis  I,  he 
encouraged  painting  in  that  country  as  well  as  in  Italy. 

Michelangelo  (1475-1564),  Florentine  like.  Leonardo,  was 
probably  the  most  wonderful  of  all  these  artists  because  of  his 
triumphs  in  a  vast  variety  of  endeavors.  It  might  Michei- 
almost  be  said  of  him  that  "jack  of  all  trades,  he  was  ^ngeio 
master  of  all."  He  was  a  painter  of  the  first  rank,  an  incom- 
parable sculptor,  a  great  architect,  an  eminent  engineer,  a  charm- 
ing poet,  and  a  profound  scholar  in  anatomy  and  physiology. 
Dividing  his  time  between  Florence  and  Rome,  he  served  the 
Medici  family  and  a  succession  of  art-loving  popes.  With  his 
other  qualities  of  genius  he  combined  austerity  in  morals,  up- 
rightness in  character,  a  lively  patriotism  for  his  native  city  and 
people,  and  a  proud  independence.  To  give  any  idea  of  his 
achievements  is  impossible  in  a  book  of  this  size.  His  tomb  of 
JuHus  II  in  Rome  and  his  colossal  statue  of  David  in  Florence 
are  examples  of  his  sculpture ;  the  cathedral  of  St.  Peter,  which 
he  practically  completed,  is  his  most  enduring  monument ;  the 
mural  decorations  in  the  Sistine  Chapel  at  Rome,  telling  on  a 
grandiose  scale  the  Biblical  story  from  Creation  to  the  Flood, 
are  marvels  of  design ;  and  his  grand  fresco  of  the  Last  Judg- 
ment is  probably  the  most  famous  single  painting  in  the  world. 

Younger  than  Michelangelo  and  Hving  only  about  half    as 
long,  Raphael  (1483-1520),  nevertheless,  surpassed  him  in  the 


I  go  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

harmonious  composition  and  linear  beauty  of  his  painting.     For 
ineffable  charm  of  grace,   "the  divine"    Raphael    has    always 
stood  without  a  peer.     Raphael  lived  the  better  part 
^  of  his  life  at  Rome  under  the  patronage  of  JuKus  II 

and  Leo  X,  and  spent  several  years  in  decorating  the  papal 
palace  of  the  Vatican.  Although  he  was,  for  a  time,  archi- 
tect of  St.  Peter's  cathedral,  and  displayed  some  aptitude  for 
sculpture  and  for  the  scholarly  study  of  archaeology,  it  is  as  the 
greatest  of  modern  painters  that  he  is  now  regarded.  Raphael 
lived  fortunately,  always  in  favor,  and  rich,  and  bearing  himself 
like  a  prince. 

Titian  (c.  147 7-1 576)  was  the  typical  representative  of  the 
Venetian  school  of  painting  which  acquired  great  distinction  in 
bright  coloring.  Official  painter  for  the  city  of  Venice 
and  patronized  both  by  the  Emperor  Charles  V  and 
by  Philip  II  of  Spain,  he  secured  considerable  wealth  and  fame. 
He  was  not  a  man  of  universal  genius  like  Leonardo  da  Vinci  or 
Michelangelo ;  his  one  great  and  supreme  endowment  was  that 
of  oil  painting.  In  harmony,  light,  and  color,  his  work  has 
never  been  equaled.  Titian's  portrait  of  Philip  II  was  sent  to 
England  and  proved  a  potent  auxiliary  in  the  suit  of  the  Spanish 
king  for  the  hand  of  Mary  Tudor.  His  celebrated  picture  of  the 
Council  of  Trent  was  executed  after  the  aged  artist's  visit  to  the 
council  about  1555. 

From  Italy  as  a  center,  great  painting  became  the  heritage  of 
all  Europe.  Italian  painters  were  brought  to  France  by  Louis 
XII  and  Francis  I,  and  French  painters  were  subsidized  to  imitate 
them.  Philip  II  proved  himself  a  liberal  patron  of  painting 
throughout  his  dominions. 

In  Germany,  painting  was  developed  by  Albrecht  Diirer 
(1471-1528),  a  native  of  Nuremberg,  who  received  a  stimulus 
from  Italian  work  and  was  royally  patronized  by  the 
Emperor  MaximiHan.  The  career  of  Diirer  was 
honored  and  fortunate :  he  was  on  terms  of  friendship  with  all 
the  first  masters  of  his  age ;  he  even  visited  and  painted  Eras- 
mus. But  it  is  as  an  etcher  or  engraver,  rather  than  as  a  painter, 
that  Diirer's  reputation  was  earned.  His  greatest  engravings  — 
such  as  the  Knight  and  Death,  and  St.  Jerome  in  his  Study  — 
set  a  standard  in  a  new  art  which  has  never  been  reached  by  his 


FOUNDATIONS   OF  MODERN   EUROPE  191 

successors.  The  first  considerable  employment  of  engraving, 
one  of  the  most  useful  of  the  arts,  synchronized  with  the  inven- 
tion of  printing.  Just  as  books  were  a  means  of  multiplying, 
cheapening,  and  disseminating  ideas,  so  engravings  on  copper  or 
wood  were  the  means  of  multiplying,  cheapening,  and  dissemi- 
nating pictures  which  gave  vividness  to  the  ideas,  or  served  in 
place  of  books  for  those  who  could  not  read. 

The  impetus  afforded  by  this  extraordinary  development  of 
painting  continued  to  affect  the  sixteenth  century  and  a  greater 
part  of  the  seventeenth.  The  scene  shifted,  however,  from 
Italy  to  the  Spanish  possessions.  And  Spanish  kings,  the  suc- 
cessors of  Philip  II,  patronized  such  men  as  Rubens  (i 577-1640) 
and  Van  Dyck  (i  599-1641)  in  the  Belgian  Netherlands,  or  Velas- 
quez (1590-1660)  and  Murillo  (1617-1682)  in  Spain  itself. 

If  the  work  of  Rubens  displayed  Httle  of  the  earlier  Italian 
grace  and  refinement,  it  at  any  rate  attained  to  distinction  in  the 
purely  fanciful  pictures  which  he  painted  in  bewilder-  Rumens 
ing  numbers,  many  of  which,  commissioned  by  Marie  and  Van 
de'  Medici  and  King  Louis  XIII  of  France,  are  now  to     ^"^ 
be  seen  in  the  Louvre  galleries  in  Paris.     And  Van  Dyck  raised 
portrait  painting  to  unthought-of  excellence :    his  portraits  of 
the  English  royal  children  and  of  King  Charles  I  are  world- 
famous. 

Within  the  last  century,  many  connoisseurs  of  art  have  been 
led  to  believe  that  Velasquez  formerly  has  been  much  under- 
rated and  that  he  deserves  to  rank  with  the  foremost  „  , 

Velasquez 

Italian  masters.  Certainly  in  all  his  work  there  is  a 
dignity,  power,  and  charm,  especially  in  that  well-known  Maids 
of  Honor,  where  a  little  Spanish  princess  is  depicted  holding 
her  court,  surrounded  by  her  ladies-in-waiting,  her  dwarfs  and 
her  mastiff,  while  the  artist  himself  stands  at  his  easel.  The 
last  feat  of  Velasquez  was  to  superintend  the  elaborate  decora- 
tions in  honor  of  the  marriage  of  the  Spanish  Infanta   „    .,. 

Murillo 

With    King    Louis    XIV    of    France.     Murillo,    the 
youngest  of  all  these  great  painters,  did  most  of  his  work  for 
the   Catholic    Church   and   naturally   dealt   with   ecclesiastical 
subjects. 

A  somewhat  different  t}^e  of  painter  is  found  in  the  Dutch- 
man, Rembrandt  (1606-1669),  who  lived  a  stormy  and  unhappy 


192  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

life  in  the  towns  of  Leyden  and  Amsterdam.  It  must  be  re- 
membered that  Holland,  while  following  her  national  career  of 
„     ,       ,     independence,   commerce,  and  colonial   undertaking;, 

Rembrandt     ,      ,     ,  ,  ,      -r^  ^t   •  ^  ,        . 

had  become  stanchly  Protestant.  Neither  the  im- 
moral paganism  of  antiquity  nor  the  medieval  legends  of  Catholi- 
cism would  longer  appeal  to  the  Dutch  people  as  fit  subjects 
of  art.  Rembrandt,  prototype  of  a  new  school,  therefore  painted 
the  actual  life  of  the  people  among  whom  he  lived  and  the  things 
which  concerned  them  —  hvely  portraits  of  contemporary  burgo- 
masters, happy  pictures  of  popular  amusements,  stern  scenes 
from  the  Old  Testament.  His  Lesson  in  Anatomy  and  his  Night 
Watch  in  their  somber  settings,  are  wonderfully  reahstic  products 
of  Rembrandt's  mastery  of  the  brush. 

Thus  painting,  like  architecture  and  sculpture,  was  perfected 
in  sixteenth-century  Italy  and  speedily  became   the  common 

property  of  Christian  Europe.     Music,  too,  the  most 

primitive  and  universal  of  the  arts,  owes  in  its  modern 
form  very  much  to  the  sixteenth  century.  During  that  period 
the  barbarous  and  uncouth  instruments  of  the  middle  ages  were 
reformed.  The  rebeck,  to  whose  loud  and  harsh  strains  the 
medieval  rustic  had  danced,^  by  the  addition  of  a  fourth  string 
and  a  few  changes  in  form,  became  the  sweet-toned  vioUn,  the 
most  important  and  expressive  instrument  of  the  modern  orches- 
tra. As  immediate  forerunner  of  our  present-day  pianoforte, 
the  harpsichord  was  invented  with  a  keyboard  carried  to  four 
octaves  and  the  chords  of  each  note  doubled  or  quadrupled  to 
obtain  prolonged  tones. 

In  the  person  of  the  papal  organist  and  choir-master,  Pales- 
trina  (15 24-1 594),  appeared  the  first  master-composer.     He  is 

justly   esteemed   as   the   father   of  modern  rehgious 

Palestrina 

music  and  for  four  hundred  years  the  Catholic 
Church  has  repeated  his  inspired  accents.  A  pope  of  the 
twentieth  century  declared  his  music  to  be  still  unrivaled  and 
directed  its  universal  use.  Palestrina  directly  influenced  much 
of  the  Itahan  music  of  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  classical 
German  productions  of  the  eighteenth. 

^  The  rebeck  probably  had  been  borrowed  from  the  Mohammedans. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  193 

NATIONAL  LITERATURES  IN  THE   SIXTEENTH   CENTURY 

Latin  had  been  the  learned  language  of  the  middle  ages :  it 
was  used  in  the  Church,  in  the  universities,  and  in  polite  society. 
If  a  lecturer  taught  a  class  or  an  author  wrote  a  book,  ^^^^ 
Latin  was  usually  employed.  In  those  very  middle  and  the 
ages,  however,  the  nations  of  western  Europe  were  de-  ^^^^'^^  ^^^ 
veloping  spoken  languages  quite  at  variance  with  the  classical, 
scholarly  tongue.  These  so-called  vernacular  languages  were 
not  often  written  and  remained  a  long  time  the  exclusive  means 
of  expression  of  the  lower  classes  —  they  consequently  not  only 
differed  from  each  other  but  tended  in  each  case  to  fall  into  a 
number  of  petty  local  dialects.  So  long  as  they  were  not  largely 
written,  they  could  achieve  no  fixity,  and  it  was  not  until  after 
the  invention  of  printing  that  the  national  languages  produced 
extensive  national  hteratures. 

Just  when  printing  was  invented,  the  humanists  —  the  fore- 
most scholars  of  Europe  —  were  diligently  engaged  in  strengthen- 
ing the  position  of  Latin  by  encouraging  the  study  of  the  pagan 
classics.  Virgil,  Cicero,  Caesar,  Tacitus,  and  the  comedies  of 
Plautus  and  Terence  were  again  read  by  educated  people  for 
their  substance  and  for  their  style.  Petrarch  imitated  the  man- 
ner of  Latin  classics  in  his  letters ;  Erasmus  wrote  his  great 
works  in  Latin.  The  revival  of  Greek,  which  was  also  due  to 
the  humanists,  added  to  the  learning  and  to  the  literature  of  the 
cultured  folk,  but  Greek,  even  more  than  Latin,  was  hardly 
understood  or  appreciated  by  the  bulk  of  the  people. 

Then  came  the  sixteenth  century,  with  its  artistic  develop- 
ments, its  national  rivalries,  its  far-away  discoveries,  its  theo- 
logical debates,  and  its  social  and  religious  unrest.  The  com- 
mon people,  especially  the  commercial  middle  class,  clamored 
to  understand :  and  the  result  was  the  appearance  of  national 
hteratures  on  a  large  scale.  Alongside  of  Latin,  which  was 
henceforth  restricted  to  the  hturgy  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  and  to  particularly  learned  treatises,  there  now  emerged 
truly  Hterary  works  in  Italian,  French,  Spanish,  Portuguese, 
German,  English,  etc.  The  printing  of  these  works  at  once 
stereotyped  their  respective  languages,  so  that  since  the  six- 
teenth century  the  written  forms  of  the  vernacular  tongues  have 


194  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

been  subject  to  relatively  minor  change.  Speaking  generally, 
the  sixteenth  century  witnessed  the  fixing  of  our  best  known 
modern  languages. 

To  review  all  the  leading  writers  who  employed  the  various 
vernaculars  in  the  sixteenth  century  would  encroach  too  much 
upon  the  province  of  professed  histories  of  comparative  litera- 
ture, but  a  few  references  to  certain  figures  that  tower  head  and 
shoulders  above  all  others  in  their  respective  countries  may 
serve  to  call  vividly  to  mind  the  importance  of  the  period  for 
national  Hteratures. 

At  the  very  outset,  one  important  exception  must  be  made 
in  favor  of  Italy,  whose  poetry  and  prose  had  already  been  im- 
itaiian  mortalized  by  Dante,  Petrarch,  and  Boccaccio  a  hun- 

Literature  dved  years  and  more  before  the  opening  of  the  six- 
teenth century.  But  that  country,  as  we  have  already  repeatedly 
observed  in  many  kinds  of  art,  anticipated  all  others  in  modern 
times.  Italy,  almost  the  last  European  land  to  be  politically 
unified,  was  the  first  to  develop  a  great  national  literature. 

But  ItaHan  Kterature  was  broadened  and  popularized  by 
several  influential  writers  in  the  sixteenth  century,  among  whom 
stand  preeminent  the  Florentine  diplomat  MachiaveUi  (1469- 
1527),  whose  Prince  really  founded  the  modern  science  of  politics, 
and  who  taught  the  dangerous  doctrine  that  a  ruler,  bent  on 
exercising  a  benevolent  despotism,  is  justified  in  employing  any 
means  to  achieve  his  purpose ;  Ariosto  (1474-1533),  whose  great 
poem  Orlando  Furioso  displayed  a  powerful  imagination  no  less 
than  a  rare  and  cultivated  taste ;  and  the  unhappy  mad  Tasso 
( 1 544-1 595),  who  in  Jerusalem  Delivered  produced  a  bulky  epic 
poem,  adapting  the  manner  of  Virgil  to  a  crusading  subject,  and 
in  Aminta  gave  to  his  countrymen  a  delightful  pastoral  drama, 
the  exquisite  lyrics  of  which  were  long  sung  in  opera. 

French  literature,  like  other  French  art,  was  encouraged  by 
Francis  I.  He  set  up  printing  presses,  established  the  College 
French  of  France,  and  pensioned  native  writers.     The  most 

Literature  famous  French  author  of  the  time  was  the  sarcastic  and 
clever  Rabelais  (c.  1490-1553),  whose  memorable  Gargantua 
comprised  a  series  of  daring  fanciful  tales,  told  with  humor  of  a 
rather  vulgar  sort.  The  language  of  Gargantua  is  somewhat 
archaic  —  perhaps    the    French    version  of    Calvin's   Institutes 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  195 

would  be  a  better  example  of  the  French  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. But  France,  thus"  seriously  beginning  her  national  litera- 
ture, was  to  wait  for  its  supremacy  until  the  seventeenth 
century  —  until  the  institution  of  the  French  Academy  and 
the  age  of  Louis  XIV. 

Spanish  literature  flourished  in  the  golden  era  when  Velas- 
quez and  Murillo  were  painting  their  masterpieces.  The  im- 
mortal Don  Quixote,  which  was  published  in  1604,  en-  Spanish 
titles  its  author,  Cervantes  (i 547-1616),  to  rank  with  Literature 
the  greatest  writers  of  all  time.  Lope  de  Vega  (i 562-1635), 
far-famed  poet,  virtually  founded  the  Spanish  theater  and  is 
said  to  have  composed  eighteen  hundred  dramatic  pieces.  Cal- 
deron  (1600-1681),  although  less  effective  in  his  numerous 
dramas,  wrote  allegorical  poems  of  unequaled  merit.  The 
printing  of  large  cheap  editions  of  many  of  these  works  made 
Spanish  Hterature  immediately  popular. 

How  closely  the  new  vernacular  literatures  reflected  significant 
elements  in  the  national  Kfe  is  particularly  observable  in  the 
case  of  Portugal.     It  was  of  the  wonderful  exploring  Portuguese 
voyages  of  Vasco  da    Gama    that    Camoens    (1524-   Literature 
1580),  prince  of  Portuguese  poets,  sang  his  stirring  Lusiads. 

In  the  Germanics,  the  extraordinary  influence  of  humanism 
at  first  militated  against  the  development  of  literature  in  the 
vernacular,  but  the  Protestant  reformer,  Martin  German 
Luther,  in  his  desire  to  reach  the  ears  of  the  common  Literature 
people,  turned  from  Latin  to  German.  Luther's  translation  of 
the  Bible  constitutes  the  greatest  monument  in  the  rise  of  modern 
German. 

To  speak  of  what  our  own  English  language  and  literature 
owe  to  the  sixteenth  century  seems  superfluous.  The  popular 
writings  of  Chaucer  in  the  fourteenth  century  were  historically 
important,  but  the  presence  of  very  many  archaic  words  makes 
them  now  difficult  to  read.  But  in  England,  from  the  appear- 
ance in  1 551  of  the  English  version  of  Sir  Thomas  More's  Utopia,^ 
a  representation  of  an  ideal  state,  to  the  publication  of  Milton's 
grandiose  epic,  Paradise  Lost,  in  1667,  there  was  a  continuity  of 
great  literature.  There  were  Cranmer's  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
and  the  King  James  Version  of  the  Bible ;    Edmund  Spenser's 

^  Originally  published  in  Latin  in  1516. 


196  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

graceful  Faerie  Queene;  ^  the  supreme  Shakespeare;  Ben  Jonson 
and  Marlowe ;  Francis  Bacon  and  Richard  Hooker ;  Thomas 
Hobbes  and  Jeremy  Taylor ;    and  the  somber  Milton  himself. 

BEGINNINGS  OF  MODERN  NATUR.\L  SCIENCE 

Human  civihzation,  or  culture,  always  depends  upon  progress 
in  two  directions  —  the  reason,  and  the  feelings  or  emotions. 
Two-fold  "^^^  ^^  ^^^  expression  of  the  latter,  and  science  of  the 
Develop-  former.  Every  great  period  in  the  world's  history, 
Culture  therefore,  is  marked  by  a  high  appreciation  of  aesthet- 
Science  ics  and  an  advance  in  knowledge.  To  this  general 
^°      *  rule,  the  sixteenth  century  was  no  exception,  for  it  was 

distinguished  not  only  by  a  wonderful  development  of  archi- 
tecture, sculpture,  painting,  engraving,  music,  and  literature,  — 
whether  Roman,  Greek,  or  vernacular,  —  but  it  is  the  most 
obvious  starting  point  of  our  modern  ideas  of  natural  and  experi- 
mental science. 

Nowadays,  we  believe  that  science  is  at  once  the  legitimate 
means  and  the  proper  goal  of  the  progress  of  the  race,  and  we 
fill  our  school  curricula  with  scientific  studies.  But  this  spirit 
is  essentially  modern :  it  owes  its  chief  stimulus  to  important 
achievements  in  the  sixteenth  century  and  the  first  half  of  the 
seventeenth. 

Five  elements  contributed  to  impress  the  period  that  we  are 
now  reviewing  with  a  scientific  character.  In  the  first  place, 
Scientific  ^^^  humanists  encouraged  a  critical  spirit  in  compar- 
Character-  ing  and  contrasting  ancient  manuscripts  and  in  in- 
the"ix-  vestigating  the  history  of  the  distant  past ;  and  their 
teenth  discovery  and  application  of  pagan  writings  served 

entury  ^^  bring  clearly  and  abruptly  before  the  educated 
people  of  the  sixteenth  century  all  that  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
had  done  in  astronomy,  physics,  mathematics,  and  medicine,  as 
well  as  in  philosophy,  art,  and  literature.  Secondly,  the  inven- 
tion of  printing  itself  was  a  scientific  feat,  and  its  extended  use 
enabled  scientists,  no  less  than  artists,  immediately  to  acquaint 
the  whole  civilized  world  with  their  ideas  and  demonstrations. 

'  For  its  scenery  and  mechanism,  the  Orlando  Fiirioso  of  Ariosto  furnished  the 
framework ;  and  it  similarly  shows  the  influence  of  Tasso. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  197 

Thirdly,  the  marvelous  maritime  discoveries  of  new  routes  to 
India  and  of  a  new  world,  which  revolutionized  European  com- 
g|ffl||^,  added  much  to  geographical  knowledge  and  led  to  the 
construction  of  scientific  maps  of  the  earth's  surface.  Fourthly, 
the  painstaking  study  of  a  small  group  of  scholars  afforded  us 
our  first  ghmpse  of  the  real  character  of  the  vast  universe  about 
our  own  globe  —  the  scientific  basis  of  modern  astronomy. 
Lastly,  two  profound  thinkers,  early  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
—  Francis  Bacon  and  Descartes,  —  pointed  out  new  ways  of 
using  the  reason  —  the  method  of  modern  science. 

In  an  earlier  chapter,  an  account  has  been  given  of  the  mari- 
time discoveries  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  their  immediate 
results  in  broadening  intellectual  interests.  In  this  chapter, 
some  attention  already  has  been  devoted  to  the  rise  of  human- 
ism and  hkewise  to  the  invention  of  printing.  It  remains,  there- 
fore, to  say  a  few  words  about  the  changes  in  astronomy  and  in 
scientific  method  that  characterized  the  beginning  of  modern 
times. 

In  the  year  1 500  the  average  European  knew  something  about 
the  universe  of  sun,  moon,  planets,  and  stars,  but  it  was  scarcely 
more  than  the  ancient  Greeks  had  known,  and  its    . 

1  •    r  r  11     T       r  rr^i  •  •      i      Astronomy 

chief  use  was  to  foretell  the  future.  1  his  practical 
aspect  of  astronomy  was  a  curious  ancient  misconception,  which 
now  passes  under  the  name  of  astrology.  It  was  popularly 
beHeved  prior  to  the  sixteenth  century  that  every  heavenly 
body  exerted  a  direct  and  arbitrary  influence  upon  human  char- 
acter and  events,^  and  that  by  casting  "horoscopes,"  showing 
just  how  the  stars  appeared  at  the  birth  of  any  person,  the  sub- 
sequent career  of  such  an  one  might  be  foreseen.  Many  silly 
notions  and  superstitions  grew  up  about  astrology,  yet  the  prac- 
tice persisted.  Charles  V  and  Francis  I,  great  rivals  in  war, 
\'ied  with  each  other  in  securing  the  services  of  most  eminent 
astrologers,  and  Catherine  de'  Medici  never  tired  of  reading 
horoscopes. 

Throughout  the  middle  ages  the  foremost  scholars  had  con- 
tinued to  cherish  the  astronomical  knowledge  of  the   Greeks, 

^  Disease  was  attributed  to  planetary  influence.  This  connection  between 
medicine  and  astrology  survives  in  the  sign  of  Jupiter  2/,  which  still  heads  medic- 
inal prescriptions. 


198  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

which  had  been  conveniently  collected  and  systematized  by  a 
celebrated  mathematician  and  scholar  living  in  Egypt  in  the 
ajjjg  second  century  of  the  Christian  era  —  Ptolemy  by 

Ptolemaic  name.  Among  other  theories  and  ideas,  Ptolemy 
ystem  taught  that  the  earth  is  the  center  of  the  universe, 
that  revolving  about  it  are  the  moon.  Mercury,  Venus,  the 
sun,  the  other  planets,  and  the  fixed  stars,  and  that  the  entire 
machine  is  turned  with  incredible  velocity  completely  around 
every  twenty-four  hours.  This  so-called  Ptolemaic  system  of 
astronomy  fitted  in  very  nicely  with  the  language  of  the  Bible 
and  with  the  popular  prejudice  that  the  earth  remains  stationary 
while  the  heavenly  bodies  daily  rise  and  set.  It  was  natural  that 
for  many  centuries  the  Christians  should  accept  the  views  of 
Ptolemy  as  almost  divinely  inspired. 

However,  a  contradictory  theory  of  the  solar  system  was  pro- 
pounded and  upheld  in  the  sixteenth  century,  quite  supplanting 
"  The  ^^^  Ptolemaic  theory  in  the  course  of  the  seventeenth. 

Copernican  The  new  System  is  called  Copernican  after  its  first 
ys  em  modern  exponent  —  and  its  general  acceptance  went 
far  to  annihilate  astrology  and  to  place  astronomy  upon  a  rational 
basis. 

Copernicus  [the  Latin  form  of  his  real  name,  Koppernigk 
(1473-1543)]  was  a  native  of  Poland,  who  divided  his  time 
between  official  work  for  the  Catholic  Church  and  private  re- 
searches in  astronomy.  It  was  during  a  ten-year  sojourn  in 
Italy  (1496-1505),  studying  canon  law  and  medicine,  and  fa- 
miharizing  himself,  through  humanistic  teachers,  with  ancient 
Greek  astronomers,  that  Copernicus  was  led  seriously  to  ques- 
tion the  Ptolemaic  system  and  to  cast  about  in  search  of  a  truth- 
ful substitute.  Thenceforth  for  many  years  he  studied  and 
reflected,  but  it  was  not  until  the  year  of  his  death  (1543)  that 
his  results  were  published  to  the  world.  His  book  —  On  the 
Revolutions  of  the  Celestial  Bodies,  dedicated  to  Pope  Paul  III 
—  offered  the  theory  that  the  earth  is  not  the  center  of  the  uni- 
verse but  simply  one  of  a  number  of  planets  which  revolve  about 
the  sun.  The  earth  seemed  much  less  important  in  the  Coper- 
nican universe  than  in  the  Ptolemaic. 

The  Copernican  thesis  was  supported  and  developed  by  two 
distinguished  astronomers  at  the  beginning  of  the  next  century  — 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  199 

Kepler  (1571-1630)  and  Galileo  (1564-1642),  one  a  German,  the 
other  an  Italian.  Kepler  taught  astronomy  for  a  number  of 
years  at  Gratz  and  subsequently  made  his  home  in 
Prague,  where  he  acquired  a  remarkable  collection  of 
instruments^  that  enabled  him  to  conduct  numerous  interesting 
experiments.  While  he  entertained  many  fantastic  and  mystical 
theories  of  the  "harmony  of  the  spheres"  and  was  not  above 
casting  horoscopes  for  the  emperor  and  for  Wallenstein,  that 
soldier  of  fortune,"  he  nevertheless  established  several  of  the 
fundamental  laws  of  modern  astronomy,  such  as  those  govern- 
ing the  form  and  magnitude  of  the  planetary  orbits.  It  was 
Kepler  who  made  clear  that  the  planets  revolve  about  the  sun 
in  elliptical  rather  than  in  strictly  circular  paths. 

Galileo  popularized  the  Copernican  theory.^  His  charming 
lectures  in  the  university  of  Padua,  where  he  taught  from  1592 
to  1 6 10,  were  so  largely  attended  that  a  hall  seating 
2000  had  to  be  provided.  In  1609  he  perfected  a  tele- 
scope, which,  although  hardly  more  powerful  than  a  present- 
day  opera  glass,  showed  unmistakably  that  the  sun  was  turning 
on  its  axis,  that  Jupiter  was  attended  by  revolving  moons,  and 
that  the  essential  truth  of  the  Copernican  system  was  estab- 
lished. Unfortunately  for  Galileo,  his  enthusiastic  desire  to 
convert  the  pope  immediately  to  his  own  ideas  got  him  into 
trouble  with  the  Roman  Curia  and  brought  upon  him  a  prohibi- 
tion from  further  writing.  Galileo  submitted  hke  a  loyal  Catho- 
lic to  the  papal  decree,  but  had  he  lived  another  hundred  years, 
he  would  have  rejoiced  that  almost  all  men  of  learning  —  popes 
included  —  had  come  to  accept  his  own  conclusions.  Thus 
modern  astronomy  was  suggested  by  Copernicus,  developed  by 
Kepler,  and  popularized  by  Galileo. 

The  acquisition  of  sound  knowledge  in  astronomy  and  like- 
wise in  every  other  science  rests  primarily  upon  the  observation 
of  natural  facts  or  phenomena  and  then  upon  deducing  rational 
conclusions  from  such  observation.  Yet  this  seemingly  simple 
rule  had  not  been  continuously  and  effectively  applied  in  any 
period  of  history  prior  to  the  sixteenth  century.     The  scientific 

^  From  Tycho  Brahe,  whose  assistant  he  was  in  1600-1601. 

*  See  below,  pp.  223,  226. 

^Another  "popularizer"  was  Giordano  Bruno  (c.  1548-1600). 


200  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

method  of  most  of  the  medieval  as  well  as  of  the  ancient  scholars 

was  essentially  that  of  Aristotle.^     This  so-called  deductive  method 

of  Aristotle  assumed  as  a  starting-point  some  general 

Modern  •      •    i  •  i  i       •  i     i 

Method  of  prmciple  as  a  premise  or  hypothesis  and  thence  pro- 
Science:        cecded,  by  logical  reasoning,  to  deduce  concrete  ap- 

Induction  ,.        .         ^        ^  '=',,,  \ 

plications  or  consequences.  it  had  been  extremely 
valuable  in  stimulating  the  logical  faculties  and  in  showing  men 
how  to  draw  accurate  conclusions,  but  it  had  shown  a  woeful 
inabihty  to  devise  new  general  principles.  It  evolved  an  elabo- 
rate theology  and  a  remarkable  philosophy,  but  natural  experi- 
mental science  progressed  relatively  little  until  the  deductive 
method  of  Aristotle  was  supplemented  by  the  inductive  method 
of  Francis  Bacon. 

Aristotle  was  partially  discredited  by  radical  humanists,  who 
made  fun  of  the  medieval  scholars  who  had  taken  him  most 
Francis  seriously,  and  by  the  Protestant  reformers,  who  as- 
Bacon  sailed  the  Cathohc  theology  which  had  been  carefully 

constructed  by  Aristotelian  deduction.  But  it  was  reserved 
for  Francis  Bacon,  known  as  Lord  Bacon  (1561-1626),  to  point 
out  all  the  shortcomings  of  the  ancient  method  and  to  propose 
a  practicable  supplement.  A  famous  lawyer,  lord  chancellor  of 
England  under  James  I,  a  born  scientist,  a  brilliant  essayist,  he 
wrote  several  philosophical  works  of  first-rate  importance,  of 
which  the  Advancement  of  Learning  (1604)  and  the  Novum  Orga- 
num  (1620)  are  the  most  famous.  It  is  in  these  works  that  he 
summed  up  the  faults  which  the  widening  of  knowledge  in  his 
own  day  was  disclosing  in  ancient  and  medieval  thought  and  set 
forth  the  necessity  of  slow  laborious  observation  of  facts  as 
antecedent  to  the  assumption  of  any  general  principle. 

What  of  scientific  method  occurred  to  Lord  Bacon  appealed 
even  more  to  the  intellectual  genius  of  the  Frenchman  Descartes 
( 1 596-1660).  A  curious  combination  of  sincere  prac- 
ticing Catholic  and  of  original  daring  rationalist  was 
this  man,  traveling  all  about  Europe,  serving  as  a  soldier  in  the 
Netherlands,  in  Bavaria,  in  Hungary,  living  in  Holland,  dying 
in  Sweden,  with  a  mind  as  restless  as  his  body.     Now  interested 

'  Exception  to  this  sweeping  generalization  must  be  made  in  favor  of  several 
medieval  scientists  and  philosophers,  including  Roger  Bacon,  a  Franciscan  friar 
of  the  thirteenth  century. 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  201 

in  mathematics,  now  in  philosophy,  presently  absorbed  in  physics 
or  in  the  proof  of  man's  existence,  throughout  his  whole  career 
he  held  fast  to  the  faith  that  science  depends  not  upon  the 
authority  of  books  but  upon  the  observation  of  facts.  "Here 
are  my  books,"  he  told  a  visitor,  as  he  pointed  to  a  basket  of 
rabbits  that  he  was  about  to  dissect.  The  Discourse  on  Method 
(1637)  and  the  Principles  of  Philosophy  (1644),  taken  in  con- 
junction with  Bacon's  work,  ushered  in  a  new  scientific  era,  to 
some  later  phases  of  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  in 
subsequent  chapters. 

ADDITIONAL  READING 

The  Renaissance.  General.  Cambridge  Modern  History^  Vol.  I  (1902), 
ch.  xvi,  xvii ;     Histoire  generak\  Vol.  IV,  ch.  vii,  viii,  Vol.  V,  ch.  x,  xi ; 

E.  M.  Hulme,  Renaissance  and  Reformation,  2d  ed.  (1915),  ch.  v-vii,  xix, 
xxix,  XXX.  More  detailed  accounts:  Jakob  Burckhardt,  The  Civilization 
of  the  Period  of  the  Renaissance  in  Italy,  trans,  by  S.  G.  C.  Middlemore, 
2  vols.  (1878),  I  vol.  ed.  (1898),  scholarly  and  profound;  J.  A.  Symonds, 
Renaissance  in  Italy,  5  parts  m  7  vols.  (1897-1898),  interesting  and  sugges- 
tive but  less  reliable  than  Burckhardt ;  Ludwig  Geiger,  Renaissance  und 
Humanisnius  in  Italien  und  Dcutschland  (1882),  in  the  great  Oncken  Series; 

F.  X.  Kraus,  Geschichte  der  christlichcn  Kunst,  2  vols,  in  4  (1896-1908),  a 
monumental  work  of  great  interest  and  importance,  by  a  German  Catholic. 

Humanism.  The  best  description  of  the  rise  and  spread  of  humanism 
is  J.  E.  Sandys,  A  History  of  Classical  Scholarship,  Vol.  II  (1908).  For 
the  spirit  of  early  humanism  see  H.  C.  Hollway-Calthrop,  Petrarch :  his 
Life  and  Times  (1907) ;  J.  H.  Robinson  and  H.  W.  Rolfe,  Petrarch,  the 
First  Modern  Scholar  and  Man  of  Letters,  2d  ed.  (1914),  a  selection  from 
Petrarch's  letters  to  Boccaccio  and  other  contemporaries,  translated  into 
English,  with  a  valuable  introduction ;  Pierre  de  Nolhac,  Petrarque  et 
Vhumanisme,  2d  ed.,  2  vols,  in  i  (1907).  Of  the  antecedents  of  humanism 
a  convenient  summary  is  presented  by  Louise  Loomis,  Mediceval  Hellenism 
(1906).  A  popular  biography  of  Erasmus  is  that  of  Ephraim  Emerton, 
Desiderius  Erasmus  (1899) ;  the  Latin  Letters  of  Erasmus  are  now  (191 6) 
in  course  of  publication  by  P.  S.  Allen ;  F.  M.  Nichols,  The  Epistles  of 
Erasmus,  2  vols.  (1901-1906),  an  excellent  translation  of  letters  written 
prior  to  1517  ;  Erasmus's  Praise  of  Folly,  in  English  translation,  is  ob- 
tainable in  many  editions.  D.  F.  Strauss,  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  his  Life  and 
Times,  trans,  by  Mrs.  G.  Sturge  (1874),  gives  a  good  account  of  the  whole 
humanistic  movement  and  treats  Hutten  very  sympathetically  ;  The  Letters 
of  Obscure  Men,  to  which  Hutten  contributed,  were  published,  with  English 
translation,  by  F.  G.  Stokes  in  1909.  An  excellent  edition  of  The  Utopia  of 
Sir  Thomas  More,  the  famous  EngHsh  humanist,  is  that  of  George  Sampson 


202  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

(1910),  containing  also  an  English  translation  and  the  charming  contem- 
porary Biography  by  More's  son-in-law,  William  Roper.  The  standard 
summary  of  the  work  of  the  humanists  is  the  German  writing  of  Georg 
Voigt,  Die  Wiederbehbung  des  classischen  Alterthunis,  3d  ed.,  2  vols.  (1893). 
Interesting  extracts  from  the  writings  of  a  considerable  variety  of  humanists 
are  translated  by  Merrick  Wliitcomb  in  his  Literary  Source  Books  of  the 
Renaissance  in  Germany  and  in  Italy  (1898-1899). 

Invention  of  Printing.  T.  L.  De  Vinne,  Invention  of  Printing,  2d  ed. 
(1878),  and,  by  the  same  author.  Notable  Printers  of  Italy  during  the  Fif- 
teenth Century  (1910),  two  valuable  works  by  an  eminent  authority  on  the 
subject;  G.  H.  Putnam,  Books  and  their  Makers  during  the  Middle  Ages, 
2  vols.  (1896-1897),  a  useful  contribution  of  another  experienced  publisher; 
Johannes  Janssen,  History  of  the  German  People,  Vol.  I,  Book  I,  ch.  i. 
There  is  an  interesting  essay  on  '"  Publication  before  Printing  "  by  R.  K. 
Root  in  the  Publications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association,  Vol.  XXVIII 

(1913),  pp.  417-431- 

National  Literatures.  Among  the  many  extended  bibliographies  of 
national  literatures  the  student  certainly  should  be  famihar  with  the  Cam- 
bridge History  of  English  Literature,  ed.  by  A.  W.  Ward  and  A.  R.  Waller, 
12  vols.  (1907-1916) ;  and  with  G.  Lanson,  Alanuel  bibliographique  de  la 
litterature  franqaise  moderne,  i^oo-igoo,  4  vols.  (1909-1913).  See  also, 
as  suggestive  references,  Pasquale  Villari,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Machiavclli, 
2  vols,  in  I  (1898) ;  A.  A.  Tilley,  The  Literature  of  the  French  Renaissance, 
2  vols.  (1904) ;  George  Saintsbury,  A  History  of  Elizabethan  Literature 
(1887) ;   and  Sir  Sidney  Lee,  Life  of  Shakespeare,  new  rev.  ed.  (1915). 

Art  in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  Architecture:  A.  D.  F.  Hamlin,  A  Text- 
book of  the  History  of  Architecture,  5th  ed.  (1902),  a  brief  general  survey; 
A  History  of  Architecture,  Vols.  I,  II  by  Russell  Sturgis  (1906),  III,  IV  by 
A.  L.  Frothingham  (191 5) ;  Banister  Fletcher,  A  History  of  Architecture, 
Sth  ed.  (1905) ;  James  Fergusson,  History  of  Architecture  in  All  Countries, 
3d  rev.  ed.,  5  vols.  (1891-1899).  Sculpture:  Allan  Marquand  and  A.  L. 
Frothingham,  A  Text-book  of  the  History  of  Sculpture  (1896) ;  Wilhelm 
von  Liibke,  History  of  Sculpture,  Eng.  trans.,  2  vols.  (1872).  Painting: 
J.  C.  Van  Dyke,  A  Text-book  of  the  History  of  Painting,  new  rev.  ed. 
(191 5);  Alfred  von  Woltmann  and  Karl  Woermann,  History  of  Paint- 
ing, Eng.  trans.,  2  vols.  (1894).  Music:  W.  S.  Pratt,  The  History  of 
Music  (1907).  See  also  the  Lives  of  Seventy  of  the  Most  Eminent  Painters, 
Sculptors,  and  Architects  by  Giorgio  Vasari  (1512-1574),  the  contemporary 
and  friend  of  Michelangelo,  trans,  by  Mrs.  Foster  in  the  Bohn  Library ; 
Osvald  Siren,  Leonardo  da  Vinci:  the  Artist  and  the  Man  (191 5);  and 
Romain  Rolland,  Michelangelo  (191 5). 

Science  and  Philosophy  in  the  Sixteenth  Century.  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  Vol.  V  (1908),  ch.  xxiii,  Vol.  IV  (1906),  ch.  xxvii,  scholarly  ac- 
counts of  Galileo,  Bacon,  Descartes,  and  their  contemporaries.  A  veritable 
storehouse  of  scientific  facts  is  H.  S.  and  E.  H.  Williams,  A  History  of 
Science,  10  vols.  (1904-1910).     Specifically,  see  Arthur  Berry,  Short  History 


FOUNDATIONS   OF   MODERN   EUROPE  203 

of  Astronotny  (1899) ;  Karl  von  Gebler,  Galileo  Galilei  and  the  Roman 
Curia,  Eng.  trans,  by  Mrs.  George  Slurge  (1879) ;  B.  L.  Conway,  The  Con- 
demnaiion  of  Galil  0  (191 3) ;  and  Galileo,  Dialogues  Concerning  Two  New 
Sciences,  Eng.  trans,  by  Crew  and  Salvio  (1914).  The  Philosophical 
Works  of  Francis  Bacon,  ed.  by  J.  ]\I.  Robertson  (1905),  is  a  convenient 
edition.  On  the  important  thinkers  from  the  time  of  Machiavelli  to 
the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  see  Harald  Hoffding,  A  History  of 
Modern  Philosophy,  \o\.  I  (1900) ;  W.  A.  Dunning,  A  History  of  Political 
Theories  from  Luther  to  Montesquieu  (1905) ;  Paul  Janet,  Histoire  de  la 
science  politique  dans  ses  rapports  avec  la  morale,  3d  ed.,  Vol.  II  (1887), 


PART   II 
DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY 


PART   II 

DYNASTIC    AND    COLONIAL    RIVALRY 

In  the  seventeenth  century  and  in  the  greater  part  of  the 
eighteenth,  pubhc  attention  was  directed  chiefly  toward  dynas- 
tic and  colonial  rivalries.  In  the  European  group  of  national 
states,  France  was  the  most  important.  Pohtically  the  French 
evolved  a  form  of  absolutist  divine-right  monarchy,  which  be- 
came the  pattern  of  all  European  monarchies,  that  of  England 
alone  excepted.  In  international  affairs  the  reigning  family  of 
France  —  the  Bourbon  dynasty  —  after  a  long  struggle  suc- 
ceeded in  humihating  the  rulers  of  Spain  and  of  Austria  —  the 
Habsburg  dynasty.  The  hegemony  which,  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  Spain  had  exercised  in  the  newly  estabhshed  state- 
system  of  Europe  was  now  supplanted  by  that  of  France.  In- 
tellectually, too,  ItaHan  leadership  yielded  to  French,  until 
France  set  the  fashion  alike  in  manners,  morals,  and  art.  Only 
in  the  sphere  of  commerce  and  trade  and  exploitation  of  lands 
beyond  the  seas  was  French  supremacy  questioned,  and  there 
not  by  declining  Portugal  or  Spain  but  by  the  vigorous  English 
nation.  France,  victorious  in  her  struggle  for  dynastic  aggran- 
dizement on  the  continent  of  Europe,  was  destined  to  suffer 
defeat  in  her  efforts  to  secure  colonies  in  Asia  and  America. 

This  period  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  was 
marked  Hkewise  by  the  constant  decay  of  old  poHtical  and  social 
institutions  in  Italy  and  in  Germany,  by  the  gradual  decKne  of 
the  might  and  prestige  of  the  Ottoman  Turks,  and  by  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  ancient  kingdom  of  Poland.  In  their  place  appeared 
as  great  world  powers  the  northern  monarchies  of  Prussia  and 
Russia,  whose  royal  Hues  —  Hohenzollerns  and  Romanovs  — 
were  to  vie  in  ambition  and  prowess,  before  the  close  of  the 
period,  with  Habsburgs  and  Bourbons. 

207 


2o8  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Socially,  the  influence  of  nobles  and  clergy  steadily  declined. 
As  steadily  arose  the  numbers,  the  ability,  and  the  importance 
of  the  traders  and  commercial  magnates,  the  moneyed  people, 
all  those  who  were  identified  with  the  new  wealth  that  the  Com- 
mercial Revolution  was  creating,  the  lawyers,  the  doctors,  the 
professors,  the  merchants,  —  the  so-called  middle  class,  the 
bourgeoisie,  who  gradually  grew  discontented  with  the  restric- 
tive institutions  of  their  time.  Within  the  bourgeoisie  was  the 
seed  of  revolution  :  they  would  one  day  in  their  own  interests 
overturn  monarchy,  nobihty,  the  Church,  the  whole  social  fabric. 
That  was  to  be  the  death-knell  of  the  old  regime  —  the  annun- 
ciation of  the  nineteenth  century. 


CHAPTER   VI 

THE    GROWTH    OF    ABSOLUTISM    IN    FRANCE    AND    THE 

STRUGGLE    BETWEEN    BOURBONS    AND    HABSBURGS, 

1589-1661 

GROWTH   OF   ABSOLUTISM   IN    FRANCE:     HENRY    IV, 
RICHELIEU,   AND   MAZARIN 

For  the  first  time  in  many  years  France  in  1598  was  at  peace. 
The  Edict  of  Nantes,  which  in  that  year  accorded  qualified 
religious  toleration  to  the  Huguenots,  removed  the  most  serious 
danger  to  internal  order,  and  the  treaty  of  Vervins,  concluded 
in  the  same  year  with  the  king  of  Spain,  put  an  end  to  a  long 
and  exhausting  foreign  war.  Henry  IV  was  now  free  to  under- 
take the  internal  reformation  of  his  country. 

Sorry,  indeed,  was  the  phght  of  France  at  the  close  of  the 
sixteenth  century.     Protracted  civil  and  foreign  wars  had  pro- 
duced their  ine\dtable  consequences.     The  state  was  g^^j-y 
nearly  bankrupt.     Country  districts  lay  largely  un-  PUght  of 
cultivated.     Towns     were     burned     or     abandoned,   close  of^ 
Roads   were   rough   and   neglected,    and   bridges   in  Sixteenth 
ruins.     Many  of  the  discharged  soldiers  turned  high-     ^^  ""^^ 
waymen,   pillaged   farmhouses,   and  robbed   travelers.      Trade 
was  at  a  standstill  and  the  artisans  of  the  cities  were  out  of  work. 
During  the  wars,  moreover,  great  noblemen  had  taken  many 
rights  into  their  own  hands  and  had  acquired  a  habit  of  not 
obeying  the  king.     The  French  crown  seemed  to  be  in  danger 
of  losing  what  power  it  had  gained  in  the  fifteenth  century. 

That  the  seventeenth  century  was  to  witness  not  a  diminu- 
tion but  a  pronounced  increase  of  royal  power,  was  due  to  the 
character  of  the  French  king  at  this  critical  juncture. 
Henry  IV  (i 589-1610)  was  strong  and  vivacious. 
With  his  high  forehead,  sparkhng  eyes,  smiHng  mouth,  and  his 
neatly  pointed  beard  (Henri  guatre),  he  was  prepossessing  in 
p  209 


2IO  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

looks,  while  his  affability,  simplicity,  and  constant  expression 
of  interest  in  the  welfare  of  his  subjects  earned  him  the  appella- 
tion of  "  Good  King  Henry."  His  closest  companions  knew  that 
he  was  selfish  and  avaricious,  but  that  his  quick  decisions  were 
hkely  to  be  good  and  certain  to  be  put  in  force.  Above  all, 
Henry  had  soldierly  qualities  and  would  brook  no  disloyalty  or 
disobedience. 

Throughout  his  reign,  Henry  IV  was  well  served  by  his  chief 
minister,  the  duke  of  Sully, ^  an  able,  loyal,  upright  Huguenot, 
Still  though  avaricious  Hke  the  king  and  subject  to  furious 

fits  of  jealousy  and  temper.  Appointed  to  the  general 
oversight  of  financial  affairs,  Sully  made  a  tour  of  inspection 
throughout  the  country  and  completely  reformed  the  royal 
finances.  He  forbade  provincial  governors  to  raise  money  on 
their  own  authority,  removed  many  abuses  of  tax-collecting, 
and  by  an  honest,  rigorous  administration  was  able  between 
1600  and  1 6 10  to  save  an  average  of  a  milhon  Hvres  a  year.  The 
king  zealously  upheld  Sully's  poHcy  of  retrenchment :  he  re- 
duced the  subsidies  to  artists  and  the  grants  to  favorites,  and 
retained  only  a  small  part  of  his  army,  sufficient  to  overawe 
rebellious  nobles  and  to  restore  order  and  security  throughout 
the  realm.  To  promote  and  preserve  universal  peace,  he  even 
proposed  the  formation  of  a  World  Confederation  —  his  so-called 
"Grand  Design"  ^ — ^  which,  however,  came  to  naught  through 
the  mutual  jealousies  and  rival  ambitions  of  the  various  Euro- 
pean sovereigns.  It  proved  to  be  much  too  early  to  talk  con- 
vincingly of  general  pacifism  and  disarmament. 

While  domestic  peace  was  being  estabhshed  and  provision 
was  being  made  for  immediate  financial  contingencies,  Henry 
Agricultural  ^^  ^^^  ^is  great  minister  were  both  laboring  to  in- 
Develop-  crease  the  resources  of  their  country  and  thereby  to 
™^°  promote  the  prosperity  and  contentment  of  the  people. 

Sully  beHeved  that  the  true  wealth  of  the  nation  lay  in  farming 
pursuits,  and,  therefore,  agriculture  should  be  encouraged  even, 
if  necessary,  to  the  neglect  of  trade  and  industry.  While  the 
king  allowed  Sully  to  develop  the  farming  interests,  he  himself 
encouraged  the  new  commercial  classes. 

In  order  to  promote  agriculture.  Sully  urged  the  abolition  of 

^ 1560-1641. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  211 

interior  customs  lines  and  the  free  circulation  of  grain,  subsidized 
stock-raising,  forbade  the  destruction  of  the  forests,  drained 
swamps,  rebuilt  the  roads  and  bridges,  and  planned  a  vast  system 
of  canals. 

On  his  side,  Henry  IV  was  contributing  to  the  wealth  of  the 
middle  class.  It  was  he  who  introduced  silkworms  and  the 
mulberry  trees,  on  which  they  feed,  thereby  giving  an  impetus 
to  the  industry  which  is  now  one  of  the  most  important  in 
France.  The  beginnings  of  the  industrial  importance  of  Paris, 
Lyons,  and  Marseilles  date  from  the  reign  of  Henry  IV. 

The  king  hkewise  encouraged  commerce.  A  French  mer- 
chant marine  was  built  up  by  means  of  royal  bounties.  A  navy 
was  started.  Little  by  little  the  French  began  to  com-  commercial 
pete  for  trade  on  the  high  seas  at  first  with  the  Dutch,  Deveiop- 
and  subsequently  with  the  Enghsh.  French  trading  °*^" 
posts  were  estabhshed  in  India ;  and  Champlain  was  dispatched 
to  the  New  World  to  lay  the  foundations  of  a  French  empire  in 
America.  It  was  fortunate  for  France  that  she  had  two  men 
like  Henry  IV  and  Sully,  each  supplementing  the  work  of  the 
other. 

The  assassination  of  Henry  IV  by  a  crazed  fanatic  in  1610 
threatened  for  a  time  to  nullify  the  effects  of  his  labors,  for 
supreme  power  passed  to  his  widow,  Marie  de'  Medici,  Regency  of 
an  ambitious  but  incompetent  woman,  who  dismissed  Marie  de' 
Sully  and  undertook  to  act  as  regent  for  her  nine-year- 
old  son,  Louis  XIII.     The  queen-regent    was    surrounded    by 
worthless  favorites  and  was  hated  by  the  Huguenots,  who  feared 
her  rigid  Catholicism,  and  by  the  nobles,  Catholic  and  Huguenot 
alike,  who  were  determined  to  maintain  their  pri\dleges  and 
power. 

The  hard  savings  of  Henry  IV  were  quickly  exhausted,  and 

France  once  more  faced  a  financial  crisis.     In  this  emergency 

the    Estates- General    was    again    convened    (1614). 

Since  the  accession  of  Louis  XI  (1461),  the  French  of  the 

monarchs   with    their   absolutist   tendencies  had  en-  Estates- 
General 
deavored  to  remove  this  ancient  check  upon  their 

authority :  they  had  convoked  it  only  in  times  of  public  con- 
fusion or  economic  necessity.  Had  the  Estates-General  really 
been  an  effective  body  in  161 4,  it  might  have  taken  a  position 


212  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

similar  to  that  of  the  seventeenth-century  Parhament  in  Eng- 
land and  estabhshed  constitutional  government  in  France,  but 
its  organization  and  personnel  militated  against  such  heroic 
action.  The  three  estates  —  clergy,  nobles,  and  commoners 
(bourgeois)  —  sat  separately  in  as  many  chambers ;  the  clergy 
and  nobles  would  neither  tax  themselves  nor  cooperate  with  the 
Third  Estate ;  the  commoners,  many  of  whom  were  Huguenots, 
were  dishked  by  the  court,  despised  by  the  First  and  Second 
Estates,  and  quite  out  of  sympathy  with  the  peasants,  the  bulk 
of  the  French  nation.  It  is  not  surprising,  under  the  circum- 
stances, that  the  session  of  1614  lasted  but  three  weeks  and  ended 
as  a  farce :  the  queen-regent  locked  up  the  halls  and  sent  the 
representatives  home  —  she  needed  the  room  for  a  dance,  she 
said.  It  was  not  until  the  momentous  year  of  1789  —  after  a 
lapse  of  175  years  — •  that  the  Estates-General  again  assembled. 

After  the  fiasco  of  16 14,  affairs  went  from  bad  to  worse. 
Nobles  and  Huguenots  contended  between  themselves,  and  both 
against  the  court  favorites.  As  many  as  five  distinct  uprisings 
occurred.  Marie  de'  Medici  was  forced  to  relinquish  the  govern- 
ment, but  Louis  XIII,  on  reaching  maturity,  gave  evidence  of 
httle  executive  ability.  The  king  was  far  more  interested  in 
music  and  hunting  than  in  business  of  state.  No  improvement 
appeared  until  Cardinal  Richeheu  assumed  the  guidance  of 
affairs  of  state  in  1624.  Henceforth,  the  royal  power  was  exer- 
cised not  so  much  by  Louis  XIII  as  by  his  great  minister. 

Born  of  a  noble  family  of  Poitou,  Armand  de  Richelieu  (1585- 
1642),  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  had  been  appointed  bishop  of 
Cardinal  the  small  diocese  of  Lugon.  His  eloquence  and  ability 
Richelieu  g^g  spokesman  for  the  clergy  in  the  fatuous  Estates- 
General  of  1614  attracted  the  notice  of  Marie  de'  Medici,  who 
invited  him  to  court,  gave  him  a  seat  in  the  royal  council,  and 
secured  his  nomination  as  a  cardinal  of  the  Roman  Church. 
From  1624  until  his  death  in  1642,  Richeheu  was  the  most  im- 
portant man  in  France. 

.  With  undoubted  loyalty  and  imperious  will,  with  the  most 
deUcate  diplomacy  and  all  the  blandishments  of  subtle  court 
intrigue,  sometimes  with  sternest  and  most  merciless  cruelty, 
Richelieu  maintained  his  influence  over  the  king  and  proceeded 
to  destroy  the  enemies  of  the  French  crown. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  213 

Richelieu's  policies  were  quite  simple :  (i)  To  make  the  royal 
power  supreme  in  France;  (2)  to  make  France  predominant  in 
Europe.  The  first  invoh'ed  the  removal  of  checks  Richelieu's 
upon  royal  authority  and  the  triumph  of  absolutism ;  Policies 
the  second  meant  a  vigorous  foreign  poHcy,  leading  to  the  hu- 
miliation of  the  rival  Habsburgs.  In  both  these  poKcies  Riche- 
lieu was  following  the  general  traditions  of  the  preceding  cen- 
tury, essentially  those  of  Henry  IV,  but  to  an  exaggerated  extent 
and  with  unparalleled  success.  Postponing  consideration  of 
general  European  affairs,  let  us  first  see  what  the  great  cardinal 
accomplished  in  France. 

First  of  all,  Richelieu  disregarded  the  Estates-General.     He 
was  convinced  of  its  futihty  and  unhesitatingly  decKned  to  con- 
sult it.     Gradually  the  idea  became  current  that  the 
Estates-General    was  an  out-worn,  medieval  institu-  ance^of^^'^ 
tion,    totally   unlit   for   modern   purposes,    and   that  Represent- 
official  business  could  best  —  and  therefore  properly  gi^ent^ 
—  be  conducted,  not  by  the  representatives  of  the 
chief  social  classes  in  the  nation,  but  by  personal  appointees  of 
the  king.     Thus  the  royal  council  became  the  supreme  lawmaking 
and  administrative  body  in  the  country. 

Local  estates,  or  parliaments,  continued  to  exist  in  certain  of 
the  most  recently  acquired  provinces  of  France,  such  as  Brittany, 
Provence,  Burgundy,  and  Languedoc,  but  they  had  Httle  in- 
fluence except  in  apportioning  taxes :  RicheHeu  tampered  with 
their  privileges  and  vetoed  many  of  their  acts. 

The  royal  prerogative  extended  not  only  to  matters  of  taxation 
and  legislation,  including  the  right  to  levy  taxes  and  to  make  ex- 
penditures for  any  purpose  without  pubUc  account-  The  Royal 
ing,  but  it  was  preserved  and  enforced  by  means  of  a  ^^^™y 
large  standing  army,  which  received  its  pay  and  its  orders  ex- 
clusively from  the  crown.  To  the  royal  might,  as  well  as  to  its 
right,  Richelieu  contributed.  He  energetically  aided  Louis  XIII 
in  organizing  and  equipping  what  proved  to  be  the  best  army  in 
Europe. 

Two  factions  in  the  state  aroused  the  cardinal's  ire  —  one 
the  Huguenots,  and  the  other  the  nobles  —  for  both  threatened 
the  autocracy  which  he  was  bent  upon  erecting.  Both  factions 
suffered  defeat  and  humihation  at  his  hands. 


214  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

Richelieu,  though  a  cardinal  of  the  Roman  Church,  was  more 
politician  and  statesman  than  ecclesiastic ;  though  living  in  an 
age  of  religious  fanaticism,  he  was  by  no  means  a  bigot.  As 
we  shall  presently  see,  this  CathoHc  cardinal  actually  gave 
miHtary  support  to  Protestants  in  Germany  —  for  political 
purposes  ;  it  was  similarly  for  poHtical  purposes  that  he  attacked 
the  Protestants  in  France. 

As  has  already  been  pointed  out,  French  Protestantism  meant 
an  influential  political  party  as  well  as  a  religion.  Since  Henry 
IV  had  issued  the  Edict  of  Nantes,  the  Huguenots  had 
Poiuicli  °  ^^^^  their  own  assembhes,  officers,  judges,  and  even 
Privileges  certain  fortified  towns,  all  of  which  interfered  with  the 
Huguenots  sovereign  authority  and  impaired  that  uniformity 
which  thoughtful  royalists  beheved  to  be  the  very 
cornerstone  of  absolutism.  Richelieu  had  no  desire  to  deprive 
the  Huguenots  of  rehgious  freedom,  but  he  was  resolved  that  in 
poUtical  matters  they  should  obey  the  king.  Consequently, 
when  they  revolted  in  1625,  he  determined  to  crush  them.  In 
spite  of  the  considerable  aid  which  England  endeavored  to  give 
them,  the  Huguenots  were  entirely  subdued.  Richeheu's  long 
siege  of  La  Rochelle,  lasting  nearly  fifteen  months,  showed  his 
forceful  resolution.  When  the  whole  country  had  submitted, 
the  Edict  of  Alais  was  published  (1629),  leaving  to  the  Protes- 
tants freedom  of  conscience  and  of  worship  but  depriving  them 
of  their  fortifications  and  forbidding  them  to  hold  assembhes. 
Public  office  was  still  open  to  them  and  their  representatives 
kept  their  judicial  posts.  "The  honest  Huguenot  retained  all 
that  he  would  have  been  willing  to  protect  with  his  Hfe,  while 
the  factious  and  turbulent  Huguenot  was  deprived  of  the  means 
of  embarrassing  the  government." 

The  repression  of  the  nobles  was  a  similar  statesmanHke 
achievement,  and  one  made  in  the  face  of  redoubtable  opposition. 
Repression  ^^  ^^^  long  been  customary  to  name  noblemen  as  gover- 
ofthe  nors  of  the  various  provinces,  but  the  governors  had 

gradually  become  masters  instead  of  administrators : 
they  commanded  detachments  of  the  army ;  they  claimed  alle- 
giance of  the  garrisons  in  their  towns ;  they  repeatedly  and  openly 
defied  the  royal  will.  The  country,  moreover,  was  sprinkled 
with  noblemen's  castles  or  chateaux,  protected  by  fortifications 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  215 

and  armed  retainers,  standing  menaces  to  the  prompt  execution 
of  the  king's  orders.  Finally,  the  noblemen  at  court,  jealous 
of  the  cardinal's  advancement  and  spurred  on  by  the  intrigues  of 
the  disaffected  Marie  de'  Medici  or  of  the  king's  own  brother, 
hampered  the  minister  at  every  turn.  Of  such  intolerable  con- 
ditions, Richeheu  determined  to  be  quit. 

Into  the  ranks  of  noble  courtiers,  Richelieu  struck  terror. 
By  means  of  spies  and  trickery,  he  ferreted  out  conspiracies  and 
arbitrarily  put  their  leaders  to  death.  Every  attempt  at  rebel- 
lion was  mercilessly  punished,  no  matter  how  exalted  in  rank  the 
rebel  might  be.  Richelieu  was  never  moved  by  entreaties  or 
threats  —  he  was  as  inexorable  as  fate  itself. 

The  cardinal  did  not  confine  his  attention  to  noblemen  at 
court.  As  early  as  1626  he  pubHshed  an  edict  ordering  the  im- 
mediate demolition  of  all  fortified  castles  not  needed  _ 

.  Demolition 

for  defense  against  foreign  invasion.     In  carrymg  this  of  Private 
edict  into  force,  Richelieu  found  warm  supporters  in  ^ortifica- 

,  -  ,    tions 

the  peasantry  and  townsfolk  who  had  long  suffered 
from  the  exactions  and  depredations  of  their  noble  but  warHke 
neighbors.     The  ruins  of  many  a  chateau  throughout  modern 
France  bear  eloquent  witness  to  the  cardinal's  activity. 

Another  enduring  monument  to  Richelieu  was  the  centrah- 
zation  of  French  administration.     The  great  minister  was  tired 
of  the  proud,  independent  bearing  of  the  noble  gover-        ^^^^.^ 
nors.     Without   getting   rid  of  them  altogether,  he  tion  of 
checked  these  proud  officials  by  transferring  most  of  Admims- 
their  powers  to  a  new  kind  of  royal  ofHcer,  the  intend- 
ant.     Appointed  by  the  crown  usually  from  among  the  intelli- 
gent, loyal  middle  class,  each  intendant  had  charge  of  a  certain 
district,  supervising   therein  the  assessment  and  collection  of 
royal   taxes,   the   organization   of   local   police   or  militia,   the 
enforcement   of   order,   and   the   conduct  of   courts.  The 
These  intendants,  with  their  wide  powers  of  taxation,  i^tendants 
police,  and  justice,  were  later  dubbed,  from  their  approximate 
number,  the  "thirty  tyrants"  of  France.     But  they  owed  their 
positions  solely  to  the  favor  of  the  crown ;    they  were  drawn 
from  a  class  whose  economic  interests  were  long  and  well  served 
by  the  royal  power;    and  their  loyalty  to  the  king,  therefore, 
could  be  depended  upon.     The  intendants  constantly  made  re- 


2i6  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

ports  to,  and  received  orders  from,  the  central  government  at 
Paris.  They  were  so  many  eyes,  all  over  the  kingdom,  for  an 
ever-watchful  Richelieu.  And  in  measure  as  the  power  of  the 
bourgeois  intendants  increased,  that  of  the  noble  governors 
diminished,  until,  by  the  eighteenth  century,  the  ofifices  of  the 
latter  had  become  largely  honorary  though  still  richly  remunera- 
tive. To  keep  the  nobles  amused  and  in  money,  and  thereby 
out  of  mischief  and  politics,  became,  from  Richelieu's  time,  a 
maxim  of  the  royal  policy  in  France. 

Such,  in  brief,  was  the  work  of  this  grim  figure  that  moved 
across  the  stage  at  a  critical  period  in  French  history.  Riche- 
RicheUeu's  Heu,  more  than  any  other  man,  was  responsible  for 
Significance  ^j^g  assurance  of  absolutism  in  his  country  at  the  very 
time  when  England,  by  means  of  revolution  and  bloodshed,  was 
establishing  parliamentary  government ;  and,  as  we  shall  soon 
see,  his  foreign  policy  covered  France  with  European  glory  and 
prestige. 

In  person,  Richelieu  was  frail  and  sickly,  yet  when  clothed  in 
his  cardinal's  red  robes  he  appeared  distinguished  and  com- 
manding. His  pale,  drawn  face  displayed  a  firm  determination 
and  an  inflexible  will.  Unscrupulous,  exacting,  and  without 
pity,  he  preserved  to  the  end  a  proud  faith  in  his  moral 
strength  and  in  his  loyalty  to  country  and  to  king. 

Richelieu  died  in  1642,  and  the  very  next  year  the  monarch 
whom  he  had  served  so  gloriously  followed  him  to  the  grave, 
leaving  the  crown  to  a  boy  of  five  years  —  Louis  XIV. 

The  minority  of  Louis  XIV  might  have  been  disastrous  to 
France  and  to  the  royal  power,  had  not  the  strong  policies  of 
Minority  of  Richellcu  been  exemplified  and  enforced  by  another 
Louis  XIV  remarkable  minister  and  cardinal,  Mazarin.  Mazarin 
(1602-1661)  was  an  Itahan,  born  near  Naples,  educated  for 
an  ecclesiastical  career  at  Rome  and  in  Spain.  In  the  discharge 
Cardinal  of  Several  delicate  diplomatic  missions  for  the  pope, 
Mazarin  j^g  Yisid  acted  as  nuncio  at  Paris,  where  he  so  in- 
gratiated himself  in  Richelieu's  favor  that  he  was  invited  to 
enter  the  service  of  the  king  of  France,  and  in  1639  he  became 
a  naturalized  Frenchman. 

Despite  his  foreign  birth  and  the  fact  that  he  never  spoke 
French  without  a  bad  accent,  he  rose  rapidly  in  public  service. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  217 

He  was  named  cardinal  and  was  recognized  as  Richelieu's 
disciple  and  imitator.  From  the  death  of  the  greater  car- 
dinal in  1642  to  his  own  death  in  1661,  Mazarin  actually 
governed  France. 

Against  the  Habsburgs,  Mazarin  continued  the  great  war 
which  Richelieu  had  begun  and  brought  it  to  a  successful  con- 
clusion. In  domestic  affairs,  he  encountered  greater  unrest  of 
troubles.  The  nobles  had  naturally  taken  umbrage  at  *^®  Nobles 
the  vigorous  policies  of  Richelieu,  from  which  Mazarin  seemed  to 
have  no  thought  of  departing.  They  were  strengthened,  more- 
over, by  a  good  deal  of  popular  dislike  of  Mazarin's  foreign  birth, 
his  avarice,  his  unscrupulous  plundering  of  the  revenues  of  the 
realm  for  the  benefit  of  his  own  family,  and  his  tricky  double- 
deahng  ways. 

The  result  was  the  Fronde,'  the  last  attempt  prior  to  the 
French  Revolution  to  cast  off  royal  absolutism  in  France.     It 
was  a  vague  popular  protest  coupled  with  a  selfish  re- 
action on  the  part  of  the  influential  nobles :   the  pre- 
text was  Mazarin's  interference  with  the  parlement  of  Paris. 

The  parlements  were  judicial  bodies  ^  which  tried  important 
cases  and  heard  appeals  from  lower  courts.  That  of  Paris, 
being  the  most  eminent,  had,  in  course  of  time,  se-  The 
cured  to  itself  the  right  of  registering  royal  decrees  —  Parlements 
that  is,  of  receiving  the  king's  edicts  in  formal  fashion  and  enter- 
ing them  upon  the  statute  books  so  that  the  law  of  the  land 
might  be  known  generally.  From  making  such  a  claim,  it  was 
only  a  step  for  the  parlement  of  Paris  to  refuse  to  register  cer- 
tain new  edicts  on  the  ground  that  the  king  was  not  well  in- 
formed or  that  they  were  in  conflict  with  older  and  more  binding 
enactments.  If  these  claims  were  substantiated,  the  royal  will 
would  be  subjected  to  revision  by  the  parlement  of  Paris.  To 
prevent  their  substantiation,  both  Louis  XIII  and  Louis  XIV 
held  "beds  of  justice"  —  that  is,  appeared  in  person  before  the 
parlement,  and  from  their  seat  of  cushions  and  pillows  declared 
their  will  regarding  the  new  edict  and  directed  that  it  be  pro- 
mulgated.     There  were  amusing  scenes  when  the  boy-king,  at 

^  Probably  so  called  from  the  name  of  a  street  game  played  by  Parisian  children 
and  often  stopped  by  policemen. 

^  There  were  thirteen  in  the  seventeenth  century. 


2i8  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  direction  of  Mazarin,  gave  orders  in  his  shrill  treble  to  the 
learned  lawyers  and  grave  old  judges. 

Egged  on  by  seeming  popular  sympathy  and  no  doubt  by 
the  contemporaneous  pohtical  revolution  in  England,  the  par- 
lement  of  Paris  at  length  defied  the  prime  minister.  It  pro- 
claimed its  immunity  from  royal  control ;  declared  the  illegaHty 
of  any  public  tax  which  it  had  not  freely  and  expressly  author- 
ized ;  ordered  the  aboHtion  of  the  office  of  intendant ;  and 
protested  against  arbitrary  arrest  or  imprisonment.  To  these 
demands,  the  people  of  Paris  gave  support  —  barricades  were 
erected  in  the  streets,  and  Mazarin,  whose  loyal  army  was  still 
fighting  in  the  Germanics,  was  obhged  temporarily  to  recognize 
the  new  order.  Within  six  months,  however,  sufficient  troops 
had  been  collected  to  enable  him  to  overawe  Paris  and  to  annul 
his  concessions. 

Subsequent  uprisings,  engineered  by  prominent  noblemen, 
were  often  more  humorous  than  harmful.  To  be  sure,  no  less  a 
Suppression  Commander  than  the  great  Conde,  one  of  the  chief 
of  the  heroes  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  took  arms  against 

^°"  ^  the  Cardinalists,  as  Mazarin's  party  was  called,  but 

so  slight  was  the  aid  which  he  received  from  the  French  people 
that  he  was  speedily  driven  from  his  country  and  joined  the 
Spanish  army.  The  upshot  of  the  Fronde  was  (i)  the  nobihty 
were  more  discredited  than  ever;  (2)  the  parlement  was  for- 
Triumph  of  bidden  to  devote  attention  to  political  or  financial 
Absolutism  affairs ;  (3)  Paris  was  disarmed  and  lost  the  right  of 
electing  its  own  municipal  officers ;  (4)  the  royal  au- 
thority was  even  stronger  than  under  Richelieu  because  an  un- 
successful attempt  had  been  made  to  weaken  it.  Henry  IV, 
Richelieu,  and  Mazarin  had  made  straight  the  way  for  the 
despotism  of  Louis  XIV. 

STRUGGLE    BETWEEN   BOURBONS   AND    HABSBURGS: 
THE   THIRTY  YEARS'   WAR 

Every  European  country,  except  England,  was  marked  in  the 
seventeenth  century  by  a  continued  growth  of  monarchical 
power.  The  kings  were  busily  engaged  in  strengthening  their 
hold  upon  their  respective  states  and  in  reaching  out  for  addi- 


\ 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  219 

tional  lands  and  wealth.     International  wars,  therefore,  assumed 
the  character  of  struggles  for  dynastic  aggrandizement.     How 
might  this  or  that  royal  family  obtain  wider  terri-  dynastic 
tories  and  richer  towns?     There  was  certainly  suf-  Character 
ficient  national  life  in  western  Europe  to  make  the  j^  the 
common  people  proud  of   their   nationality;    hence  Seventeenth 
the  kings  could  normally  count  upon  popular  sup-     ^°  ^^^ 
port.     But  wars  were  undertaken  upon  the  continent  of  Europe 
in  the  seventeenth  century  not  primarily  for  national  or  patri- 
otic motives,  but  for  the  exaltation  of  a  particular  royal  family. 
Citizens  of  border  pro\dnces  were  treated  like  so  many  cattle  or 
so  much  soil  that  might  be  conveniently  bartered  among  the 
kings  of  France,  Spain,  or  Sweden. 

This  idea  had  been  quite  evident  in  the  increase  of  the  Habs- 
burg  power  during  the  sixteenth  century.     In  an  earlier  chapter 
we  have  noticed  how  that  family  had  acquired  one  dis-  Habsburg 
trict    after    another    until    their   property    included :  Dominions 
(1)  Under  the  Spanish  branch  —  Spain,  the  Two  Sici- 
lies, Milan,  Franche  Comte,  the  Belgian  Netherlands,  Portugal, 
and  a  huge  colonial  empire ;    (2)  Under  the  Austrian  branch  — 
Austria  and  its  dependencies,  Hungary,  Bohemia,  and  the  title 
of   Holy    Roman   Emperor.     Despite   the   herculean   labors   of 
Philip  II,  France  remained  outside  Habsburg  influence,  a  big 
gap  in  what  would  otherwise  have  been  a  series  of  connected 
territories. 

In     measure     as     the     French     kings  —  the     Bourbons  — 
strengthened  their  position  in  their  own  country,  they  looked 
abroad  not  merely  to  ward  off  foreign  attacks  but  to  Ambition 
add    land    at    their    neighbors'    expense.     Richelieu  of  the 
understood  that  his  two  policies  went  hand  in  glove 
—  to  make  the  Bourbons  predominant  in  Europe  was  but  a 
corollary  to  making  the  royal  power  supreme  in  France. 

The  chief  warfare  of  the  seventeenth  century  centers,  there- 
fore, in  the  long,  terrible  conflict  between  the  Habsburgs  and  the 
Bourbons.     Of    this    struggle,    the    so-called    Thirty  The  Thirty 
Years'  War  (1618-1648)  may  be  treated  as  the  first  ^^^^^'  ^" 
stage.     Let  us  endeavor  to  obtain  a  clear  idea  of  the  interests 
involved. 

When   Richelieu   became   the  chief  minister  of  Louis  XIII 


2  20  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

(1624),  he  found  the  Habsburgs  in  serious  trouble  and  he 
resolved  to  take  advantage  of  the  situation  to  enhance  the 
prestige  of  the  Bourbons.  The  Austrian  Habsburgs  were  fac- 
ing a  vast  civil  and  religious  war  in  the  Germanics,  and  the 
Spanish  Habsburgs  were  dispatching  aid  to  their  hard-pressed 
kinsmen. 

The  war,  which  proved  momentous  both  to  the  Habsburgs 
and  to  their  enemies,  resulted  from  a  variety  of  reasons  —  reH- 
gious,  economic,  and  poHtical. 

The  peace  of  Augsburg  (1555)  had  been  expected  to  settle  the 
religious  question  in  the  Germanics.  But  in  practice  it  had 
failed  to  fix  two  important  matters.  In  the  first  place, 
Years'  War  •  ^^^^  provision  forbidding  further  secularization  of 
Ecciesias-  cliurch  property  ("Ecclesiastical  Reservation")  was 
Causes  ^'^^  carried  out,  nor  could  it  be  while  human  nature 

and  human  temptation  remained.  Every  Catholic 
ecclesiastic  who  became  Protestant  would  naturally  endeavor 
to  take  his  church  lands  with  him.  Then,  in  the  second  place, 
the  peace  had  recognized  only  Catholics  and  Lutherans :  mean- 
while the  Calvinists  had  increased  their  numbers,  especially  in 
southern  and  central  Germany  and  in  Bohemia,  and  demanded 
equal  rights.  In  order  to  extort  concessions  from  the  emperor,  a 
union  of  Protestant  princes  was  formed,  containing  among  its 
members  the  zealous  young  Calvinist  prince  of  the  Palatinate, 
Frederick,  commonly  called  the  Elector  Palatine  of  the  Rhine. 
The  Catholics  were  in  an  equally  belligerent  frame  of  mind. 
Not  only  were  they  determined  to  prevent  furthur  secularization 
of  church  property,  but,  emboldened  by  the  progress  of  the 
Catholic  Reformation  in  the  Germanics  during  the  second  half 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  they  were  now  anxious  to  revise  the 
earlier  religious  settlement  in  their  own  interest  and  to  regain,  if 
possible,  the  lands  that  had  been  lost  by  the  Church  to  the 
Protestants.  The  Catholics  relied  for  political  and  military 
support  upon  the  Catholic  Habsburg  emperor  and  upon  Maxi- 
milian, duke  of  Bavaria  and  head  of  the  Catholic  League  of 
Princes.  Religiously,  the  enemies  of  the  Habsburgs  were  the 
German  Protestants. 

But  a  hardly  less  important  cause  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  lay 
in  the  politics  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.     The  German  princes 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  221 

had  greatly  increased  their  territories  and  their  wealth  during  the 
Protestant  Revolution.     They  aspired,  each  and  all,  to  complete 
sovereignty.     They  would  rid  themselves  of  the  out-         Thirtv 
worn  bonds  of  a  medieval  empire  and  assume  their  Years'  War : 
proper  place  among  the  independent  and  autocratic  Political 
rulers  of  Europe.     On  his  side,  the  emperor  was  in- 
sistent upon  strengthening  his  position  and  securing  a  united 
powerful  Gennany  under  his  personal  control.     Politically ^  the 
enemies  of  the  Habsburgs  were  the  Gemian  princes. 

With  the  princes  was  almost  invariably  allieci  any  European 
monarch  who  had  anything  to  gain  from  dividing  Germany 
or  weakening  Habsburg  influence.  In  case  of  a  civil  war,  the 
Habsburgs  might  reasonably  expect  to  find  enemies  in  Denmark, 
Sweden,  and  France. 

The  war  naturally  divides  itself  into  four  periods :    (i)  The 
Bohemian  Revolt ;    (2)  The  Danish  Period ;    (3)  The 
Swedish   Period ;     (4)   The   French   or  International  pe^ods 
Period.  in  the 

The  signal  for  the  outbreak  of  hostilities  in  the  years'  War 
Germanics  was  given  by  a  rebeUion  in  Bohemia  against 
the  Habsburgs.     Following  the  death  of  Rudolph  II  (15 76-16 12), 
a  narrow-minded,  art-loving,  and  unbalanced  recluse,  his  child- 
less brother  Matthias  (1612-1619)  had  desired    to   secure   the 
succession  of  a  cousin,  Ferdinand  II  (1619-1637),  who,  although 
a  man  of  blameless  life  and  resolute  character,  was  known  to  be 
devoted  to  the  cause  of  absolutism  and  fanatically  loyal  to  the 
CathoHc  Church.      Little  opposition  to  this   settle-  j    j^^ 
ment    was    encountered    in    the    various    Habsburg  Bohemian 
dominions,    except    in    Bohemia.     In    that    country, 
however,  the  nobles,  many  of  whom  were  Calvinists,  dreaded 
the  prospective  accession  of  Ferdinand,  who  w^ould  be  likely  to 
deprive  them  of  their  special  privileges  and  to  impede,  if  not  to 
forbid,  the  exercise  of  the  Protestant  religion  in  their  territories. 
Already  there  had  been  encroachments  on  their  religious  liberty. 

One  day  in  1618,  a  group  of  Bohemian  noblemen  broke  into 
the  room  where  the  imperial  envoys  were  stopping  and  hurled 
them  out  of  a  window  into  a  castle  moat  some  sixty  feet  below. 
This  so-called  "defenestration"  of  Ferdinand's  representatives 
was  followed  by  the  proclamation  of  the  dethronement  of  the 


222  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

Habsburgs  in  Bohemia  and  the  election  to  the  kingship  of 
Frederick,  the  Calvinistic  Elector  Palatine.  Frederick  was 
crowned  at  Prague  and  prepared  to  defend  his  new  lands.  Fer- 
dinand II,_j;aismg^  a  large  array  in  his  other  possessionsT'ahd. 
receiving  assistance  from  Maximihan  of  Bavaria  and  the  Catho- 
lic League  as  well  as  from  Tuscany  and  the^SpaiUshjIabsburgs, 
intrusted  the  allied  forces  to  an  able  veteran  generalp~€t>unt- 
Tilly  (1559-1632).  King  Frederick  had  expected  support  from 
his^tathef-in-raw,  James  I  of  England,  and  from  the  Lutheran 
princes  of  northern  Germany,  but  in  both  respects  he  was  dis- 
appointed. What  with  parhamentary  quarrels  at  home  and  a 
curiously  mistaken  foreign  policy  of  a  Spanish  alHance,  James 
confined  his  assistance  to  pompous  advice  and  long  words. 
Then,  too,  most  of  the  Lutheran  princes,  led  by  the  tactful  John 
George,  elector  of  Saxony,  hoped  by  remaining  neutral  to  obtain 
special  concessions  from  the  emperor. 

Within  a  very  brief  period,  Tilly  subdued  Bohemia,  drove  out 
Frederick,  and  reestablished  the  Habsburg  power.  Many  re- 
bellious nobles  lost  their  property  and  lives,  and  the  practice  of 
the  Protestant  religion  was  again  forbidden  in  Bohemia.  Nor 
was  that  all.  The  victorious  imperialists  drove  the  fugitive 
Frederick,  now  derisively  dubbed  the  "winter  king,"  out  of  his 
original  wealthy  possessions  on  the  Rhine,  into  miserable  exile, 
an  outcast  without  land  or  money.  The  conquered  Palatinate 
was  turned  over  to  Maximilian  of  Bavaria,  who  was  further  re- 
warded for  his  services  by  being  recognized  as  an  elector  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire  in  place  of  the  deposed  Frederick. 

The  first  period  of  the  war  was  thus  favorable  to  the 
Habsburg  and  CathoHc  causes.  Between  161 8  and  1620, 
revolt  had  been  suppressed  in  Bohemia  and  an  influential 
Rhenish  electorate  had  been  transferred  from  Calvinist  to 
Catholic  hands. 

Now,  however,  the  northern  Protestant  princes  took  alarm. 
If  they  had  viewed  with  composure  the  failure  of  Frederick's 
foolhardy  efforts  in  Bohemia,  they  beheld  with  downright  dis- 
may the  expansion  of  Bavaria  and  the  destruction  of  a  balance  of 
power  long  maintained  between  Cathohc  and  Protestant  Ger- 
many. And  so  long  as  the  ill-disciplined  remnants  of  Frederick's 
armies  were  behaving  like  highwaymen,  pillaging  and  burning 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  223 

throughout  the  Germanics,   the   emperor  dechncd  to  consider 
the  grant  of  any  concessions. 

At  this  critical  juncture,  while  the  Protestant  princes  were 
wavering  between  obedience  and  rebellion,  Christian  IV  of 
Denmark  intervened  and  precipitated  the  second  2.  Danish 
period  of  the  war.  Christian  IV  (i  588-1648)  was  intervention 
impulsive  and  ambitious :  as  duke  of  Holstein  he  was  a  member 
of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  and  opposed  to  Habsburg  domina- 
tion ;  as  king  of  Denmark  and  Norway  he  was  anxious  to  extend 
his  influence  over  the  North  Sea  ports ;    and  as  a  ^.  ,  .     „, 

•  1  '    1  r   1  •      Chnstian  IV 

Lutheran,  he  sought  to  champion  the  rights  of  his 
German  co-religionists  and  to  help  them  retain  the  rich  lands 
which  they  had  appropriated  from  the  Catholic  Church.  In 
1625,  therefore,  Christian  invaded  Germany,  supported  by  liberal 
grants  of  money  from  England  and  by  the  troops  of  many  of  the 
German  princes,  both  Calvinist  and  Lutheran. 

Against  the  Danish  invasion,  Tilly  unaided  might  have  had 
difficulty  to  stand,  but  fortune  seemed  to  have  raised  up  a  co- 
defender  of  the  imperiahst  cause  in  the  person  of  an 
extraordinary  adventurer,  Wallenstein.  This  man 
had  enriched  himself  enormously  out  of  the  recently  confiscated 
estates  of  rebelHous  Bohemians,  and  now,  in  order  to  benefit 
himself  still  further,  he  secured  permission  from  the  Emperor 
Ferdinand  II  to  raise  an  independent  army  of  his  own  to  restore 
order  in  the  empire  and  to  expel  the  Danes.  By  liberal  promises 
of  pay  and  plunder,  the  soldier  of  fortune  soon  recruited  an  army 
of  some  50,000  men,  and  what  a  motley  collection  it  was  !  ItaHan, 
Swiss,  Spaniard,  German,  Pole,  Englishman,  and  Scot,  —  Protes- 
tant was  welcomed  as  heartily  as  CathoHc,  — any  one  who  loved 
adventure  or  hoped  for  gain,  all  united  by  the  single  tie  of  loyalty 
and  devotion  to  Wallenstein.  The  force  was  whipped  into 
shape  by  the  undoubted  genius  of  its  commander  and  at  once 
became  an  effective  machine  of  war.  Yet  the  perpetual  plun- 
dering of  the  land,  on  which  it  lived,  was  a  constant  source  of 
reproach  to  the  army  of  Wallenstein. 

The  campaigning  of  the  second  period  of  the  war  took  place 
in  North  Germany.  At  Lutter,  King  t^Viricti'^n  TV  wag  rlpfpntt>r1 
overwhelmingly  by  the  combined  forces  of  TiUy  and  Wallen.- 
stein7  anctZtheTl-utheran  states  were  left  at  the  mercy  of  the 


224  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Catholic  League.  Brandenburg  openly  espoused  the  imperialist 
cause  and  aided  Ferdinand's  generals  in  expeUing  the  Danish 
king  from  German  soil.  Only  the  lack  of  naval  control  of  the 
Baltic  and  North  seas  prevented  the  victors  from  seizing  Den- 
mark. The  desperation  of  Christian  and  the  growingly  sus- 
picious activity  of  Sweden  resulted  in  the  peace  of  Liibeck  (1629), 
by  which  the  king  of  Denmark  was  left  in  possession  of  Jutland, 
Schleswig,  and  Holstein,  but  deprived  of  the  German  bishoprics 
which  various  members  of  his  family  had  taken  from  the  Catho- 
'lic  Church. 

Following  up  its  successes,  the  Catholic  League  prevailed 
upon  the  Emperor  Ferdinand  II  in  the  same  year  (1629)  to  sign 
Edict  of  the  Edict  of  Restitution,  restoring  to  the  Church  all 
Restitution  |-]^g  property  that  had  been  secularized  in  violation  of 
the  peace  of  Augsburg  of  1555.  The  edict  was  to  be  executed 
by  imperial  commissioners,  all  of  whom  were  Catholics,  and 
so  well  did  they  do  their  work  that,  within  three  years  of  the 
promulgation  of  the  edict,  Roman  Catholicism  in  the  Germanics 
had  recovered  five  bishoprics,  thirty  Hanse  towns,  and  nearly  a 
hundred  monasteries,  to  say  nothing  of  parish  churches  of 
which  the  number  can  hardly  be  estimated. 

So  far,  the  religious  and  economic  grievances  against  the 
Habsburgs  had  been  confined  mainly  to  Calvinists,  but  now  the 
Lutheran  princes  were  alarmed.  The  enforcement  of  the  Edict 
of  Restitution  against  all  Protestants  alike  was  the  signal  for 
an  emphatic  protest  from  Lutherans  as  well  as  from  Calvinists. 
A  favorable  opportunity  for  intervention  seemed  to  present  itself 
to  the  foremost  Lutheran  power  —  Sweden.  Not  only  were 
many  Protestant  princes  in  Germany  in  a  mood  to  welcome 
foreign  assistance  against  the  Catholics,  but  the  emperor  was 
less  able  to  resist  invasion,  since  in  1630,  yielding  to  the  urgent 
entreaties  of  the  Catholic  League,  he  dismissed  the  plundering 
and  ambitious  Wallenstein  from  his  service. 

The  king  of  Sweden  at  this  time  was  Gustavus  Adolphus 
(1611-1632),  the  grandson  of  that  Gustavus  Vasa  who  had 
established  both  the  independence  and  the  Lutheranism  of  his 
country.  Gustavus  Adolphus  was  one  of  the  most  attractive 
figures  of  his  age  —  in  the  prime  of  life,  tall,  fair,  and  blue-eyed, 
well  educated  and  versed  in  seven  languages,  fond  of  music  and 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  225 

poetry,  skilled  and  daring  in  war,  impetuous,  well  balanced,  and 
versatile.     A  rare  combination  of  the  idealist  and  the  practical 
man  of  affairs,  Gustavus  Adolphus  had  dreamed  of 
making    Protestant    Sweden    the   leading   power   in  interven-^ 
northern  Europe  and  had  \igorously  set  to  work  to  tion:  Gus- 
achieve  his  ends.     His  determination  to  encircle  the  Adolphus 
whole  Baltic  with  his  own  territories  —  making    it 
Hterally  a  Swedish  lake  —  brought  him  first  into  conflict  with 
Muscovy,  or,  as  we  call  it  to-day,  Russia.     Finland  and  Es- 
thonia  were  occupied,  and  Russia  agreed  in  161 7  to  exclusion 
from  the  Baltic  sea  coast.     Next  a  stubborn  conflict  with  Poland 
(1621-1629)  secured  for  Sweden  the  province  of  Livonia  and  the 
mouth  of  the  Vistula  River.     Gustavus  then  turned  his  longing 
eyes  to  the  Baltic  coast  of   northern  Germany,    at   the   very 
time  when  the  Edict  of  Restitution  promised  him  aggrieved  allies 
in  that  quarter. 

It  was  likewise  at  the  very  time  when  Cardinal  Richelieu  had 
crushed  out  all  insurrection,  whether  Huguenot  or  noble,  in 
France  and  was  seeking  some  effective  means  of  pro-  ^      ,  .., 

1-1  '        ^      ^  '  1  111        French  Aid 

longmg  the  war  m  the  Germanics  to  the  end  that  the 
rival  Habsburgs  might  be  irretrievably  weakened  and  humiliated. 
He  entered  into  definite  alHance  with  Gustavus  Adolphus  and 
provided  him  arms  and  money,  for  the  time  asking  only  that 
the  Protestant  champion  accord  the  Hberty  of  Catholic  worship 
in  conquered  districts. 

Gustavus  Adolphus  landed  in  Pomerania  in  1630  and  pro- 
ceeded to  occupy  the  chief  northern  fortresses  and  to  treat  for 
alliances  with  the  influential  Protestant  electors  of  Brandenburg 
and  Saxony.  While  Gustavus  tarried  at  Potsdam,  in  protracted 
negotiation  with  the  elector  of  Brandenburg,  Tilly  and  the  im- 
perialists succeeded,  after  a  long  siege,  in  capturing  the  Lutheran 
stronghold  of  Magdeburg  (May,  1631).  The  fall  of  the  city 
was  attended  by  a  mad  massacre  of  the  garrison,  and  of  armed 
and  unarmed  citizens,  in  streets,  houses,  and  churches ;  at  least 
20,000  perished ;  wholesale  plundering  and  a  general  conflagra- 
tion completed  the  havoc.  The  sack  of  Magdeburg  evoked  the 
greatest  indignation  from  the  Lutherans.  Gustavus  Adolphus, 
now  joined  by  the  electors  of  Brandenburg  and  Saxony  and  by 
many  other  Protestant  princes  of  northern  Germany,  advanced 
Q 


226  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

into  Saxony,  where,  in  September,  1631,  he  avenged  the  destruc- 
tion of  Magdeburg  by  defeating  decisively  the  smaller  army  of 
Tilly  on  the  Breitenfeld,  near  Leipzig.  Then  Gustavus  turned 
southwestward,  making  for  the  Rhine  valley,  with  the  idea  of 
forming  a  union  with  the  Calvinist  princes.  Only  the  prompt 
protest  of  his  powerful  ally,  Richelieu,  prevented  the  rich  arch- 
bishoprics of  Cologne,  Trier,  and  Mainz  from  passing  imme- 
diately under  Swedish  control.  Next  Gustavus  Adolphus  turned 
east  and  invaded  Bavaria.  Tilly,  who  had  reassembled  his 
forces,  failed  to  check  the  invasion  and  lost  his  life  in  a  battle 
on  the  Lech  (April,  1632).  The  victorious  Swedish  king  now 
made  ready  to  carry  the  war  into  the  hereditary  dominions  of 
the  Austrian  Habsburgs.  As  a  last  resort  to  check  the  invader, 
the  emperor  recalled  Wallenstein  with  full  power  over  his  free- 
lance army.  About  the  same  time  the  emperor  concluded  a 
close  alhance  with  his  kinsman,  the  ambitious  Philip  IV  of  Spain. 
The  memorable  contest  between  the  two  great  generals  — 
Gustavus  Adolphus  and  Wallenstein  —  was  brought  to  a  tragic 
close  in  the  late  autumn  of  the  same  year  on  the  fateful  field  of 
Liitzen.  Wallenstein  was  defeated,  but  Gustavus  was  killed. 
Although  the  Swedes  continued  the  struggle,  they  were  com- 
paratively few  in  numbers  and  possessed  no  such  general  as  their 
fallen  king.  On  the  other  side,  Wallenstein's  loyalty  could  not 
be  depended  upon ;  rumors  reached  the  ear  of  the  emperor  that 
his  foremost  general  was  negotiating  with  the  Protestants  to 
make  peace  on  his  own  terms ;  and  Wallenstein  was  assassinated 
in  his  camp  by  fanatical  imperialists  (February,  1634).  The 
tragic  removal  of  both  Wallenstein  and  Gustavus  Adolphus,  the 
economic  exhaustion  of  the  whole  empire,  and  the  national 
desire  on  the  part  of  many  Protestant  princes,  as  well  as  on  the 
part  of  the  Catholic  emperor,  to  rid  the  Germanics  of  foreign 
soldiers  and  foreign  influence  —  all  these  developments  seemed 
to  point  to  the  possibihty  of  concluding  the  third,  or  Swedish, 
period  of  the  war,  not  perhaps  as  advantageously  for  the  im- 
perialist cause  as  had  ended  the  Bohemian  revolt  or  the  Danish 
intervention,  but  at  any  rate  in  a  spirit  of  reasonable  com- 
promise. In  fact,  in  May,  1635,  a  treaty  was  signed  at  Prague 
between  the  emperor  and  such  princes  as  were  then  willing  to  lay 
down  their  arms,  whereby  all  the  military  forces  in  the  empire 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  227 

were  henceforth  to  be  under  the  direct  control  of  the  emperor 
(with  the  exception  of  a  contingent  under  the  special  command 
of  the  Lutheran  elector  of  Saxony) ;  all  princely  leagues  within 
the  empire  were  to  be  dissolved  ;  mutual  restoration  of  captured 
territory  was  to  be  made ;  and,  as  to  the  fundamental  question 
of  the  ownership  of  ecclesiastical  lands,  it  was  settled  that  any 
such  lands  actually  held  in  the  year  1627,  whether  acquired 
before  or  after  the  rehgious  peace  of  Augsburg  of  1555,  should 
continue  so  to  be  held  for  forty  years  or  until  in  each  case  an 
amicable  arrangement  could  be  reached. 

What  wrecked  the  peace  of  Prague  was  not  so  much  the  dis- 
inclination of  the  Protestant  princes  of  Germany  to  accept  its 
terms  as  the  poHcy  of  Cardinal  Richelieu  of  France.  Richelieu 
was  convinced  more  than  ever  that  French  greatness  depended 
upon  Habsburg  defeat ;  he  would  not  suffer  the  princes  to  make 
peace  with  the  emperor  until  the  latter  was  soundly  trounced 
and  all  Germany  devastated ;  instead  of  supplying  the  Swedes 
and  the  German  Protestants  with  assistance  from  behind  the 
scenes,  he  now  would  come  boldly  upon  the  stage  and  engage 
the  emperor  in  open  combat. 

The  final,  or  French,  period  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  lasted 
from  1635  to  1648  —  almost  as  long  as  the  other  three  periods 
put  together.     Richeheu  entered  the  war  not  only  to  4.  French 
humble  the  Austrian  Habsburgs  and,  if  possible,  to  intervention 
wrest  the  valuable  Rhenish  province  of  Alsace  from  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire,  but  also  to  strike  telling  blows  at  the  Continen- 
tal supremacy  of  the  Spanish  Habsburgs,  who,  since  1632,  had 
been  actively  helping  their  German  kinsmen.     The   ^.  ,  ,.    , 
Spanish  king,  it  will  be  remembered,  still  held  the  Policy  in 
Belgian    Netherlands,  on    the    northern    frontier    of  *^®  9"' 

.  manies 

France,  and  Franche  Comte  on  the  east,  while  oft- 
contested  Milan  in  northern  Italy  was  a  Spanish  dependency, 
France  was  almost  surrounded  by  Spanish  possessioas,  and 
Richeheu  naturally  declared  war  against  Spain  as  against  the 
emperor.  The  wily  French  cardinal  could  count  upon  the 
Swedes  and  many  of  the  German  Protestants  to  keep  the  Aus- 
trian Habsburgs  busily  engaged  and  upon  the  assistance  of  the 
Dutch  in  humbling  the  Spaniard,  for  Spain  had  not  yet  formally 
recognized  the  independence  of  the  Dutch  Netherlands.      Inas- 


228  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

much  as  England  was  chiefly  concerned  with  troublesome  internal 
affairs,  the  enemies  of  France  could  hardly  expect  aid  from  across 
the  Channel. 

At  first,  the  French  suffered  a  series  of  military  reverses,  due 
in  large  part  to  unpreparedness,  incompetent  commanders, 
Conde  and  and  ill-disciplined  troops.  At  one  time  it  looked  as  if 
Turenne  ^]^g  Spaniards  might  capture  Paris.  But  with  unflag- 
ging zeal  and  patriotic  devotion,  Richeheu  pressed  on  the  war. 
He  raised  armies,  drilled  them,  and  dispatched  them  into  the 
Netherlands,  into  Alsace,  into  Franche  Comte,  into  northern 
Italy,  and  into  Roussillon.  He  stirred  up  the  Portuguese .  to 
revolt  and  recover  their  independence  (1640).  And  Mazarin, 
who  succeeded  him  in  1642,  preserved  his  foreign  policy  intact. 
Young  and  brilliant  generals  now  appeared  at  the  head  of  the 
French  forces,  among  whom  were  the  dashing  Prince  of  Conde 
(1621-1686),  and  the  master  strategist  Turenne  (1611-1675), 
the  greatest  soldier  of  his  day.  The  former's  victory  of  Rocroi 
(1643)  dated  the  commencement  of  the  supremacy  of  France  in 
war,  a  supremacy  which  was  retained  for  a  century. 

Finally,  Turenne's  masterly  maneuvering  against  the  Span- 
iards and  his  forcible  detachment  of  Maximilian  of  Bavaria 
Peace  of  from  the  imperial  alliance  broke  down  effective  oppo- 
Westphaiia     sition  and  ended  the  Thirty  Years'  War  in  the  Ger- 

"^  manies.     The  various  treaties  which  were  signed  in 

1648  constituted  the  peace  of  Westphalia. 

The  political  clauses  of  the  peace  of  Westphalia  provided : 
(i)  Each  German  state  was  free  to  make  peace  or  war  without 
consulting  the  emperor  —  each  prince  was  invested  with  sov- 
ereign authority;  (2)  France  received  Alsace,  except  the  free 
city  of  Strassburg,  and  was  confirmed  in  the  possession  of  the 
bishoprics  of  Metz,  Toul,  and  Verdun ;  (3)  Sweden  was  given 
territory  in  Pomerania  controlling  the  mouth  of  the  Oder,  and 
the  secularized  bishopric  of  Bremen,  surrounding  the  city  of  that 
name  and  dominating  the  mouths  of  the  Elbe  and  the  Weser ; 
(4)  France  and  Sweden  received  votes  in  the  Diet  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire,  with  implied  rights  to  exercise  an  oversight  of 
German  affairs ;  (5)  Brandenburg  secured  eastern  Pomerania 
and  several  bishoprics,  including  Magdeburg ;  (6)  The  Palatinate 
was  divided  between  Maximilian  of  Bavaria  and  the  son  of  the 


ii,k  East.  JO    fr'»n  Gri 


iBirtVtO  Bx  BOfiMAY  &  CO.j  H,f 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL    RIVALRY  229 

deposed  Frederick  —  each  bearing  the  title  of  elector;  (7)  Swit- 
zerland and  the  United  Provinces  (Holland)  were  formally  recog- 
nized as  independent  of  the  empire  and  of  Spain  respectively. 

The  religious  difhculties  were  settled  as  follows  :  (i)  Calvinists 
were  to  share  all  the  privileges  of  their  Lutheran  fellow-Protes- 
tants; (2)  All  church  property  was  to  be  secured  in  the  posses- 
sion of  those,  whether  Catholics  or  Protestants,  who  held  it  on 
I  January,  1624;  (3)  An  equal  number  of  Catholic  and  Protes- 
tant judges  were  to  sit  in  the  imperial  courts.  Inasmuch  as  after 
1648  there  was  Httle  relative  change  of  religion  in  Germany,  this 
rehgious  settlement  was  practically  permanent. 

One  of  the  most  striking  results  of  the  peace  of  Westphalia 
was  the  completion  of  a  long  process  of  political  disruption  in  the 
Germanics.     Only  the  form  of  the  Holy  Roman  Em-  ^^jj  gggcts 
pire  survived.     The  already  shadowy  imperial  power  of  the 
became  a  mere  phantom,  nor  was  a  change  destined  yeasts' 
to  come  until,  centuries  later,  the  Prussian  Hohenzol-  War  on 
lerns  should  replace  the  Austrian  Habsburgs.     Mean-      ^'■"^'^y 
while  the  weakness  of  Germany  enabled  France  to  extend  her 
northern  boundaries  toward  the  Rhine. 

Far  more  serious  than  her  political  losses  were  the  economic 
results  to  Germany.  The  Thirty  Years'  War  left  Germany 
almost  a  desert.  "About  two-thirds  of  the  total  population  had 
disappeared ;  the  misery  of  those  that  survived  was  piteous  in 
the  extreme.  Five-sixths  of  the  villages  in  the  empire  had  been 
destroyed.  We  read  of  one  in  the  Palatinate  that  in  two  years 
had  been  plundered  twenty-eight  times.  In  Saxony,  packs  of 
wolves  roamed  about,  for  in  the  north  quite  one- third  of  the 
land  had  gone  out  of  cultivation,  and  trade  had  drifted  into  the 
hands  of  the  French  or  Dutch.  Education  had  almost  disap- 
peared ;  and  the  moral  decline  of  the  people  was  seen  in  the 
coarsening  of  manners  and  the  growth  of  superstition,  as  wit- 
nessed by  frequent  burning  of  witches."  . 

The  peace'  of  Westphalia  ended  the  Thirty  Years'   tion  of  War 
War  in  the  Germanies,  but  it  did  not  stop  the  bitter  5,®tween 

'  ^  French 


contest  between  France  and  Spain.     Mazarin  was  de-  Bourbons 
termined  to  secure  even  greater  territorial  gains  for  and  Spanish 
his  country,  and,  although  Conde  deserted  to  Spain, 
Turenne  was  more  than  a  match  for  any  commander  whom  the 


230  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

Spaniards  could  put  in  the  field.  Mazarin,  moreover,  by  ced- 
ing the  fortress  of  Dunkirk  to  the  English,  obtained  aid  from 
the  veteran  troops  of  Cromwell.  It  was  not  until  1659  that,  in 
the  celebrated  treaty  of  the  Pyrenees,  peace  was  concluded 
between  France  and  Spain.  This  provided  :  (i)  France,  by  the 
addition  of  Roussillon,  extended  her  southern  fron- 

Peace  . 

of  the  tier   completely  to   the   Pyrenees;    (2)    France   was 

Pyrenees,  recognized  as  protector  of  the  duchy  of  Lorraine; 
(3)  Conde  was  pardoned  and  reinstated  in  French  serv- 
ice ;  (4)  Maria  Theresa,  eldest  daughter  of  the  Spanish  Habs- 
burg  king,  Philip  IV,  was  to  marry  the  young  French  Bourbon 
king,  Louis  XIV,  and,  in  consideration  of  the  payment  of  a  large 
dowry,  was  to  renounce  all  claims  to  the  Spanish  dominions. 

The  treaty  of  the  Pyrenees  was  the  last  important  achieve- 
ment of  Cardinal  Mazarin.  But  before  he  died  in  1661  he  had 
the  satisfaction  of  seeing  the  triumph  of  those  policies  which  he 
had  adopted  from  Richelieu  :  the  royal  power  firmly  established 
within  France ;  the  Habsburgs,  whether  Austrian  or  Spanish, 
defeated  and  humiliated  ;  the  Bourbon  king  of  France  respected 
and  feared  throughout  Europe. 

Not  least  among  the  results  of  the  conflict  between  Habsburgs 
and  Bourbons  was  the  stimulus  given  to  the  acceptance  of  fixed 
principles  of  international  law  and  of  definite  usages 
mentor       ^^^  international  diplomacy.     In  ancient  times  the 
Inter-  existence  of  the  all-embracing  Roman  Empire  had  mili- 

Law°°  tated  against  the  development  of  international  rela- 

tions as  we  know  them  to-day.  In  the  early  middle 
ages  feudal  society  had  left  little  room  for  diplomacy.  Of  course, 
both  in  ancient  times  and  in  the  middle  ages,  there  had  been 
embassies  and  negotiations  and  treaties ;  but  the  embassies  had 
been  no  more  than  temporary  missions  directed  to  a  particular 
end,  and  there  had  been  neither  permanent  diplomatic  agents 
nor  a  professional  diplomatic  class.  To  the  development  of 
such  a  class  the  Italy  of  the  fifteenth  century  had  given  the  first 
impetus.  Northern  and  central  Italy  was  then  filled, 
as  we  have  discovered,  with  a  large  number  of  city- 
states,  all  struggling  for  political  and  economic  mastery,  all 
dependent  for  the  maintenance  of  a  "balance  of  power"  upon 
alliances  and  counter  alHances,  all  employing  diplomacy  quite 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  231 

as  much  as  war  in  the  game  of  peninsular  politics.  It  was  in 
Italy  that  there  grew  up  the  institution  of  passports,  the  distinc- 
tion between  armed  forces  and  civilians,  international  comity, 
and  in  fact  the  very  notion  that  states  have  an  interest  in  the 
observance  of  law  and  order  among  themselves.  Of  special  im- 
portance, in  this  connection,  was  Venice,  which  gradually  evolved 
a  regular  system  of  permanent  diplomats,  and  incidentally 
obliged  her  ambassadors  to  present  detailed  reports  on  foreign 
affairs ;  and,  because  of  their  commercial  preeminence  in  the 
Mediterranean,  the  Venetians  contributed  a  good  deal  to  the 
development  of  rules  of  the  sea  first  in  time  of  peace,  and  subse- 
quently in  time  of  war. 

During  the  sixteenth  century  the  Italian  ideas  of  statecraft 
and  inter-state  relations,  ably  championed  by  Machiavelli,  were 
communicated  to  the  nations  of  western  Europe.  Per-  ^^  Europe 
manent  embassies  were  established  in  foreign  countries  in  Sixteenth 
by  the  kings  of  Spain,  Portugal,  France,  and  England.  ^°  ^^^ 
Customs  of  international  intercourse  grew  up.  Diplomacy  be- 
came a  recognized  occupation  of  distinguished  statesmen. 

Two  institutions  might  have  thwarted  or  retarded  the  de- 
velopment of  international  law :    one  was  the  Catholic  Church 
with  its  international  organization  and  its  claim  to 
universal   spiritual   supremacy ;    the   other  was    the  years'  War 
Holy  Roman  Empire,  with  its  claim  to  temporal  pre-  and  inter- 
dominance  and  with  its  insistence  upon  the  essential  Law"" 
inequality  between  itself  and  all  other  states.     But  the 
Protestant  Revolt  in  the  sixteenth  century  dealt  a  severe  blow 
to  the  claim  and  power  of  the  Catholic  Church.     And  the  long 
struggle  between  Bourbons  and  Habsburgs,  culminating  in  the 
Thirty  Years'  War,  reduced  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  to  a  posi- 
tion, in  theory  as  well  as  in  fact,  certainly  no  higher  than  that 
of  the  national  monarchies  of  France,  England,  and  Spain,  or 
that  of  the  Dutch  Republic. 

From  the  treaties  of  Westphalia  emerged  a  real  state-system 
in  Europe,  based  on  the  theory  of  the  essential  equality  of  inde- 
pendent sovereign  states,  though  admitting  of  the  fact  that  there 
were  Great  Powers.  Henceforth  the  public  law  of  Europe  was 
to  be  made  by  diplomats  and  by  congresses  of  ambassadors. 
Westphalia  pointed  the  new  path. 


232  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Another  aspect  of  international  relations  was  emphasized  in 
the  iirst  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.  It  was  the  Thirty 
Years'  War,  with  its  revolting  cruelty,  which  brought  out  the 
contrast  between  the  more  humane  practice  of  war  as  an  art  in 
Italy  and  the  savagery  which  disgraced  the  Germanics.  The 
brutality  of  the  struggle  turned  thinkers'  attention  to  the  need 
of  formulating  rules  for  the  protection  of  non-combatants  in 
time  of  war,  the  treatment  of  the  sick  and  wounded,  the  pro- 
hibition of  wanton  pillage  and  other  horrors  which  shocked 
the  awakening  conscience  of  seventeenth-century  Europe.  It 
was  the  starting-point  of  the  publication  of  treatises  on  inter- 
national law. 

The  first  effective  work,  the  one  which  was  destined  long  to 
influence  sovereigns  and  diplomats,  was  Grotius's  On  the  Law  of 
War  and  Peace.  Hugo  Grotius  (1583-1645)  ^  was  a 
learned  Dutch  humanist,  whose  active  participation 
in  politics  against  the  stadholder  of  the  Netherlands  and  whose 
strong  protests  for  religious  toleration  against  the  dominant 
orthodox  Calvinists  of  his  country  combined  to  bring  upon  him- 
self a  sentence  of  life  imprisonment.  Immured  in  a  Dutch 
fortress  in  1619,  he  managed  to  escape  and  fled  to  Paris,  where 
he  prepared  and  in  1625  published  his  immortal  work.  On  the 
Law  of  War  and  Peace  is  an  exhaustive  and  masterly  text-book  — 
the  first  and  one  of  the  best  of  the  systematic  treatises  on  the 
fundamental  principles  of  international  law. 

ADDITIONAL   READING  ' 

Henry  IV,  Richelieu,  and  Mazarin.  Brief  general  accounts:  H.  O. 
Wakeman,  The  Ascendancy  of  France,  i^gS-iyis  (1894),  ch.  i-vii ;  Mary 
A.  Hollings,  Renaissance  and  Reformation,  1453-1660  (igio),  ch.  xi,  xii; 
J.  H.  Sacret,  Bourbon  and  Vasa,  1610-1715  (1914),  ch.  i-vii;  A.  J.  Grant, 
The  French  Monarchy,  I48j-i'/8q,  Vol.  I  (1900),  ch.  vi-ix ;  G.  W.  Kitchin, 
A  History  of  France,  3d  and  4th  editions  (1894-1899),  Vol.  II,  Book.  IV, 
ch.  i-iii,  Vol.  Ill,  Book  IV,  ch.  iv-viii ;  H.  T.  Dyer,  A  History  of  Modern 
Europe  from  the  Fall  of  Constantinople,  3d  ed.  rev.  by  Arthur  Hassall 
(1901),  ch.  xxix-xxxv;  Victor  Duruy,  History  of  Modern  Times,  trans, 
and  rev.  by  E.  A.  Grosvenor  (1894),  ch.  xvii,  xviii,  xx ;   Cambridge  Modern 

^  Known  in  his  native  country  as  Huig  van  Groot.  The  last  years  of  his  life 
he  spent  as  ambassador  of  Sweden  at  the  French  court. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  233 

History,  Vol.  II,  ch.  xx  (by  Stanley  Leathes,  on  Henry  IV),  Vol.  I\^,  ch.  iv 
(on  Richelieu),  xxi  (on  Mazarin) ;  Histoire  generale,  Vol.  V,  ch.  vi-viii. 
Vol.  VI,  ch.  i.  More  detailed  works :  Histoire  de  France,  ed.  by  Ernest 
Lavisse,  Vol.  VI,  Part  I  (1904),  Livre  IV  (on  Henry  IV),  Vol.  VI,  Part  II 
(1905),  Livres  I-III  (on  Henry  IV  and  Richelieu,  by  J.  H.  Mariejol),  Vol. 
VII,  Part  I  (1906),  Livre  I  (on  Mazarin,  by  E.  Lavisse)  ;  P.  F.  Willert, 
Henry  of  Navarre  (1897),  in  "  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series;  C.  C.  Jack- 
son, The  First  of  the  Bourbons,  2  vols.  (1890) ;  J.  B.  Perkins,  Ricluiieii  and 
the  Growth  of  French  Power  (1900),  in  the  "  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series, 
and,  by  the  same  author,  an  admirable  writer  and  authority  on  the  whole 
period,  France  under  Mazarin,  2  vols.  (1886) ;  Georges  (Vicomte)  d'Avenel, 
Richelieu  et  la  nionarchie  ahsolue,  4  vols,  (i 884-1 890),  the  foremost  French 
work  on  the  subject ;  Gabriel  Hanotaux,  Origines  de  rinstitntion  des  in- 
tcndants  de  provinces  (1884),  a  careful  study  of  the  beginnings  of  the  ofiEce  of 
intendant  by  a  famous  French  statesman  and  historian;  P.  A.  Cheruel, 
Histoire  de  France  pendant  la  minorite  de  Louis  XIV,  4  vols.  (1879-1880), 
and,  by  the  same  author,  Histoire  dc  France  sous  le  ministere  de  Mazarin, 
1651-1661,  3  vols.  (1882),  a  very  elaborate  treatment  of  Mazarin's  public 
career  in  France;  Louis  BatifTol,  The  Century  of  the  Renaissance  in  France, 
Eng.  trans,  by  Elsie  F.  Buckley  (1916),  containing  an  excellent  chapter  on 
the  French  monarchy  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

The  Thirty  Years'  War.  General  treatments:  E.  F.  Henderson,  A 
Short  History  of  Gertnany,  Vol.  I  (1902),  ch.  xvii,  xviii,  a  good,  short  in- 
troduction ;  S.  R.  Gardiner,  The  Thirty  Years'  War  (1897),  in  the  "  Epochs 
of  Modern  History  "  Series,  the  best  brief  survey;  History  of  All  Nations, 
Vol.  XII,  ch.  iv-viii,  by  Martin  Philippson,  a  well-known  German  his- 
torian; Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  IV  (1906),  ch.  i,  iii,  v-vii,  xiii, 
xiv,  XX,  xxii;  Histoire  generale,  Vol.  V,  ch.  xii ;  Anton  Gindely,  The  Thirty 
Years'  War,  trans,  from  the  German  by  Andrew  Ten  Brook,  2  vols.  (1884), 
a  popular  treatment  by  a  recognized  authority  in  this  field,  breaking  o&, 
unfortunately,  in  the  year  1623  ;  Gustav  Droysen,  DasZeitalter  des  dreissig- 
jdhrigen  Krieges  (1888)  and  Georg  Winter,  Geschichte  des  dreissigjdhrigen 
Krieges  (1893),  two  bulky  volumes  in  the  Oncken  Series  devoted  re'spec- 
tively  to  the  pohtical  and  mihtary  aspects  of  the  war;  Emile  Charveriat, 
Histoire  de  la  guerre  de  trentc  ans,  2  vols.  (1878),  a  reliable  French  account 
of  the  whole  struggle.  On  the  history  of  the  Germanics  from  the  religious 
peace  of  Augsburg  to  the  peace  of  Westphalia  there  is  the  painstaking 
Deutsche  Geschichte  im  Zeitalter  der  Gegenreformation  und  des  dreissigjdhrigen 
Krieges,  1555-1648,  by  Moritz  Ritter,  3  vols.  (1889-1908).  For  the  his- 
tory of  Austria  during  the  period,  see  Franz  Krones,  Handbuch  der  Ge- 
schichte Oesterreichs  von  der  dltesten  Zeit,  Vol.  Ill  (1877),  Books  XIV-XV. 
For  the  Netherlands,  with  special  reference  to  Spain's  part  in  the  war: 
Henri  Pirenne,  Histoire  de  Belgique,  Vol.  IV,  1 567-1648  (191 1).  For 
Bohemia:  Ernest  Denis,  Fin  de  rindependance  boheme,  Vol.  II  (1890), 
and,  by  the  same  author.  La  Boheme  depuis  la  Montagne-Blanche,  Vol.  I 
(1903).     For  Denmark  and  Sweden:   R.  N.  Bain,  Scatuiinavia,  a  Political 


234  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

History  of  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden,  from  1513  to  igoo  (1905).  There 
is  a  convenient  biography  of  Gustavus  Adolphus  by  C.  R.  L.  Fletcher  in 
the  "  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series  (1890),  and  a  more  detailed  study  in 
German  by  Gustav  Droysen,  2  vols.  (1869-1870).  On  Wallenstein  there 
are  two  standard  German  works :  Leopold  von  Ranke,  Geschichte  Wallen- 
steins,  3d  ed.  (1872),  and  Anton  Gindely,  Waldstein,  1625-1630,  2  vols. 
(1886).  The  best  brief  treatment  of  European  international  relations  in 
the  time  of  Richelieu  and  Mazarin  is  Emile  Bourgeois,  Manuel  historique 
de  politique  etrangcre,  4th  ed.,  Vol.  I  (1906),  ch.  i,  ii,  vi.  For  a  brief  treat- 
ment of  the  development  of  international  law  during  the  period,  see  D.  J. 
Hill,  History  of  Diplomacy  in  the  International  Development  of  Europe,  Vol. 
II  (1906),  ch.  vii.  The  treaties  of  Westphalia  are  in  the  famous  old  com- 
pilation of  Jean  Dumont,  Corps  uttiversel  diplomatique  du  droit  des  gens,  8 
vols.  (1726-1731). 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE    GROWTH    OF    ABSOLUTISM    IN    FRANCE    AND    THE 

STRUGGLE    BETWEEN    BOURBONS    AND    HABSBURGS, 

1661-1743 

THE  AGE  OF  LOUIS  XIV 

Upon  the  death  of  Cardinal  Mazarin  in  1661,  the  young 
king  Louis  XIV  declared  that  he  would  assume  personal  charge 
of  the  domestic  and  foreign  affairs  of  the  French  monarchy. 
From  that  date,  throughout  a  long  reign,  Louis  was  in  fact  as 
well  as  in  name  ruler  of  the  nation,  and  his  rule,  like  that  of 
Napoleon,  stands  out  as  a  distinct  epoch  in  French  history. 

Louis  XIV  profited  by  the  earHer  work  of  Henry  IV,  Sully, 
Richelieu,  and  Mazarin.     He  inherited  a  fairly  compact  state, 
the  population  of  which  was  patriotic  and  loyal  to  the        . 
cro\\Ti.     Insurrections  of  Protestants  or  rebellions  of  the  Heir  to 
nobles  were  now  things  of  the  past.     The  Estates-  Absolutist 

.  P  .  .  Tendencies 

General,  the  ancient  form  of  representative  gov- 
ernment, had  fallen  into  disuse  and  oblivion.  Local  adminis- 
tration was  conducted  by  faithful  middle-class  officials,  the 
intendants ;  and  all  powers  of  taxation,  war,  public  improve- 
ments, police,  and  justice  were  centered  in  the  hands  of  the 
king.  Abroad,  the  rival  Habsburgs  had  been  humbled  and 
French  boundaries  had  been  extended  and  French  prestige 
heightened.  Everything  was  in  readiness  for  a  great  king  to 
practice  absolutism  on  a  scale  never  before  realized. 

The  theories  of  government  upon  which  the  absolutism  of 
Louis  XIV  was  based  received  a  classic  expression  in  a  celebrated 
book  written  by  Bossuet  (16 2 7-1 704),  a  learned  and  upright 
bishop  of  the  time.       Government,  according  to   Bossuet,^  is 

^  The  statements  of  the  arguments  in  favor  of  monarchy  by  divine  right  are 
taken  from  Bossuet's  famous  book,  La  politique  tiree  des  propres  paroles  de  VEcriture 
Sainte. 

235 


236  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

divinely  ordained  in  order  to  enable  mankind  to  satisfy  the 
natural  instincts  of  living  together  in  organized  society.  Under 
.,    ,   .         God,  monarchy  is,  of  all  forms  of  government,  the 

Absolutism  111  •  1     1         r  1 

most  usual  and  the  most  ancient,  and  therefore  the 
most  natural :  it  is  likewise  the  strongest  and  most  eiScient, 
therefore  the  best.  It  is  analogous  to  the  rule  of  a  family  by 
Monarchy  ^^^  father,  and,  like  that  rule,  should  be  hereditary, 
by  Divine  Four  qualities  are  referred  by  the  eloquent  bishop  to 
^  such  an  hereditary  monarch :    (i)  That  he  is  sacred 

is  attested  by  his  anointing  at  the  time  of  coronation  by  the 
priests  of  the  Church  —  it  is  accordingly  blasphemy  and  sacrilege 
to  assail  the  person  of  the  king  or  to  conspire  against  him; 
(2)  That  he  is  to  provide  for  the  welfare  of  his  people  and  watch 
over  their  every  activity  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that 
he  is,  in  a  very  real  sense,  the  father  of  his  people,  the  paternal 
king ;  (3)  His  power  is  absolute  and  autocratic,  and  for  its  exer- 
cise he  is  accountable  to  God  alone  —  no  man  on  earth  may 
rightfully  resist  the  royal  commands,  and  the  only  recourse  for 
subjects  against  an  evil  king  is  to  pray  God  that  his  heart  be 
changed ;  (4)  Greater  reason  is  given  to  a  king  than  to  any  one 
else  —  the  king  is  an  earthly  image  of  God's  majesty,  and  it 
is  wrong,  therefore,  to  look  upon  him  as  a  mere  man.  The 
king  is  a  public  person  and  in  him  the  whole  nation  is  embodied. 
"As  in  God  are  united  all  perfection  and  every  virtue,  so  all 
the  power  of  all  the  individuals  in  a  community  is  united  in 
the  person  of  the  king." 

Such  was  the  theory  of  what  is  called  divine-right  monarchy 
or  absolutism.     It  must  be  remembered  that  it  had  been  gain- 

•  YTv  ^^-^S  ground  during  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries,  until  it  was  accepted  practically  by  all  the 
French  people  as  well  as  by  most  of  their  Continental  neighbors. 
Even  in  England,  as  we  shall  presently  see,^  the  Stuart  kings 
attempted,  for  a  time  with  success,  to  assert  and  maintain  the 
doctrine.  It  was  a  pohtical  idea  as  popular  in  the  seventeenth 
century  as  that  of  democracy  is  to-day.  And  Louis  XIV  was  its 
foremost  personification.  Suave,  dignified,  elegant  in  manners 
and  speech,  the  French  king  played  his  part  well ;  he  appeared 
to  have  been  born  and  divinely  appointed  to  the  kingly  calling. 

^  See  below,  pp.  263  ff. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  237 

For  a  king,  Louis  worked  hard.  He  was  conscientious  and 
painstaking.  Day  after  day  he  reviewed  the  details  of  adminis- 
tration. Over  all  things  he  had  a  watchful  eye.  Systematically 
he  practiced  what  he  termed  the  "trade  of  a  king."  "One 
reigns  by  work  and  for  work,"  he  wrote  his  grandson. 

No  prince  was  more  fortunate  than  Louis  XIV  in  his  personal 
advisers  and  lieutenants.  Not  only  were  his  praises  proclaimed 
by  the  silver-tongued  Bossuet,  but  he  was  served  by  such  men 
as  Colbert,  the  financier  and  reformer;  Louvois,  the  military 
organizer ;  Vauban,  the  master  builder  of  fortifications ;  Conde 
and  Turenne,  unconquerable  generals ;  and  by  a  host  of  literary 
lights,  whom  he  patronized  and  pensioned,  and  who  cast  about 
his  person  a  glamour  of  renown.  Louis  was  hailed  as  the  "  Grand 
Monarch,"  and  his  age  was  appropriately  designated  the  Age  of 
Louis  the  Fourteenth. 

At  Versailles,  some  twelve  miles  from  Paris,  in  the  midst  of 
what  had  been  a  sandy  waste,  the  Grand  Monarch  erected  those 
statelv  palaces,   with   their  lavish   furnishings,    and 

*^  Versailles 

broad  parks  and  great  groves  and  myriads  of  delight-  and  the 
ful  fountains,  which  became  Europe's  pleasure  center.   ^°"^*  °^ 

rr^t    .    ^  1  IT-.  1  1    •!•  1  'r      LOUIS  XIV 

I  hither  were  drawn  the  French  nobility,  who,  if 
shorn  of  all  political  power,  were  now  exempted  from  disagree- 
able taxes  and  exalted  as  essential  parts  of  a  magnificent  social 
pageant.  The  king  must  have  noblemen  as  valets-de-chambre, 
as  masters  of  the  wardrobe  or  of  the  chase  or  of  the  revels. 
Only  a  nobleman  was  fit  to  comb  the  royal  hair  or  to  dry  off 
the  king  after  a  bath.  The  nobles  became,  like  so  many  chande- 
liers, mere  decorations  for  the  palace.  Thus,  about  Versailles 
gathered  the  court  of  France,  and  the  leaders  of  fashion  met 
those  of  brains. 

It  was  a  time  when  French  manners,    dress,    speech,    art, 
literature,  and  science  were  adopted  as  the  models  and  property 
of  civilized  Europe.     Corneille  (i  606-1 684),  the  father  u  jj^g  ^ 
of  the  French  stage;   MoHere  (1622-1673),  the  great-  of  Louis 
est  of  French  dramatists;    Racine  (1639-1699),  the 
polished,  formal  playwright;    Madame  de  Sevigne  (1626-1696), 
the  brilliant  and  witty  authoress  of  memoirs;    La   Fontaine 
(1621-1695),  the  popular  rhymer  of  whimsical  fables  and  teller 
of  scandalous  tales;    and  many  another  graced  the  court  of 


238  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Versailles  and  tasted  the  royal  bounty.  French  became  the 
language  of  fashion  as  well  as  of  diplomacy  —  a  position  it 
has  ever  since  maintained. 

While  the  court  of  Louis  XIV  was  thus  the  focal  point  of 
French  —  almost  of  European  —  life,  the  professional  and  mer- 
"  Rule  of  cantile  classes,  who  constituted  the  Third  Estate, 
the  Robe "  enjoyed  comparative  security  and  prosperity  and 
under  the  king  held  all  of  the  important  offices  of  actual  ad- 
ministration. Because  of  the  judicial  offices  which  the  middle 
class  filled,  the  government  was  popularly  styled  the  "rule  of 
the  robe." 

Colbert  (1619-1683),  one  of  Louis's  greatest  ministers,  was 
the  son  of  a  merchant,  and  was  intensely  interested  in  the  wel- 
fare of  the  class  to  which  he  belonged.  Installed  in 
office  through  the  favor  of  Mazarin,  he  was  suc- 
cessively named,  after  the  cardinal's  death,  superintendent  of 
public  works,  controller-general  of  finances,  minister  of  marine, 
of  commerce  and  agriculture,  and  of  the  colonies.  In  short, 
until  his  death  in  1683,  he  exerted  power  in  every  department  of 
government  except  that  of  war.  Although  he  never  possessed 
the  absolute  personal  authority  which  marked  the  ministries  of 
Richelieu  and  Mazarin,  being  plainly  subservient  to  the  king's 
commands,  nevertheless  he  enjoyed  for  many  years  the  royal 
favor  and  by  incessant  toil  succeeded  in  accomplishing  a  good 
deal  for  the  material  prosperity  of  France.  In  many  respects 
his  policies  and  achievements  resembled  Sully's. 

First,  financial  reform  claimed  all  the  energies  of  Colbert. 
Under  the  government  of  Richelieu,  and  more  particularly  under 
Attempted  ^^^^  ^^  Mazarin,  the  hard  savings  of  Sully  had  been 
Financial  squandered,  enormous  sums  had  been  granted  to 
^ "™  favorites,  and  the  ever-increasing  noble  class  had 
been  exempted  from  taxation,  an  evil  system  of  tax-gathering, 
called  "farming  the  taxes,"  ^  had  grown  up,  and  the  weight  of 
the  financial  burden  had  fallen  almost  exclusively  upon  the 
wretched  peasantry.     Colbert  sternly  and  fearlessly  set  about 

^  "Farming  the  taxes,"  that  is,  intrusting  the  collection  of  taxes  to  individuals 
or  corporations  that  squeezed  as  much  money  as  they  could  from  the  taxpayers 
and  kept  for  themselves  what  they  collected  over  and  above  the  lump  sum  due  the 
government. 


DYNASTIC  AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  239 

his  task.  He  appointed  agents  whose  honesty  he  could  trust 
and  reformed  many  of  the  abuses  in  tax-collecting.  While  he 
was  unable  to  impose  the  direct  land  tax  —  the  taille  —  upon 
the  privileged  nobility,  he  stoutly  resisted  every  attempt  further 
to  augment  the  number  of  exemptions,  and  actually  lowered 
this  direct  tax  upon  the  peasantry  by  substituting  indirect 
taxes,  or  customs  duties,  which  would  in  some  degree  affect 
all  the  people.  To  Hghten  the  burden  of  the  country-folk,  he 
sought  to  promote  agriculture.  He  provided  that  no  farmers' 
tools  might  be  seized  for  debt.  He  encouraged  the  breeding  of 
horses  and  cattle.  He  improved  the  roads  and  other  means 
of  interior  communication.  The  great  canal  of  Languedoc, 
joining  the  Mediterranean  with  the  Garonne  River  and  thence 
with  the  Atlantic,  was  planned  and  constructed  under  his 
patronage.  As  far  as  possible,  the  duties  on  the  passage 
of  agricultural  produce  from  province  to  province  were 
equalized. 

In  forwarding  what  he  beHeved  to  be  his  own  class  interests, 
Colbert  was  especially  zealous.  Manufactures  and  commerce 
were  fostered  in  every  way  he  could  devise.     New  ^  „ 

.     ,  .  ,  , .  1      ,        .  1      Colbert  and 

mdustnes    were    estabhshed,     mventors    protected,  French 
workmen    invited    from    foreign    countries,    native  Mercantu- 

°  ism 

workmen  prohibited  to  leave  France.  A  heavy 
tariff  was  placed  upon  foreign  imports  in  order  to  protect  "in- 
fant industries"  and  increase  the  gain  of  French  manufacturers 
and  traders.  Liberal  bounties  were  allowed  to  French  ships 
engaged  in  commerce,  and  foreign  ships  were  compelled  to  pay 
heavy  tonnage  duties  for  using  French  ports.  And  along  with 
the  protective  tariff  and  subsidizing  of  the  merchant  marine, 
went  other  pet  policies  of  mercantilism,^  such  as  measures  to 
prevent  the  exportation  of  precious  metals  from  France,  to 
encourage  corporations  and  monopoHes,  and  to  extend  minute 
governmental  supervision  over  the  manufacture,  quality,  quan- 
tity, and  sale  of  all  commodities.  What  advantages  accrued  from 
Colbert's  efforts  in  this  direction  were  more  than  offset  by  the 
unfortunate  fact  that  the  mercantile  class  was  unduly  enriched 
at  the  expense  of  other  and  numerically  larger  classes  in  the 
community,  and  that  the  centralized  monarchy,  in  which  the 

^  See  above,  pp.  63  f. 


240  HISTORY   OF   MODERN    EUROPE 

people  had  no  part,  proved  itself  unfit,  in  the  long  run,  to  over- 
see the  details  of  business  with  wisdom  or  honesty. 

Stimulation  of  industry  and  commerce  has  usually  necessitated 
the  creation  of  a  protecting  navy.  Colbert  appreciated  the  re- 
Coibert's  quirement  and  hastened  to  fulfill  it.  He  recon- 
"  World  structed  the  docks  and  arsenal  of  Toulon  and  estab- 
°  *^^  lished  great  ship-yards  at  Rochefort,  Calais,  Brest, 

and  Havre.  He  fitted  out  a  large  royal  navy  that  could  compare 
favorably  with  that  of  England  or  Spain  or  Holland.  To 
supply  it  with  recruits  he  drafted  seamen  from  the  maritime 
provinces  and  resorted  to  the  use  of  criminals,  who  were  often 
chained  to  the  galleys  like  so  many  slaves  of  the  new  industry. 

Likewise,  the  adoption  of  the  mercantile  policy  seemed  to 
demand  the  acquisition  of  a  colonial  empire,  in  which  the  mother- 
country  should  enjoy  a  trade-monopoly.  So  Colbert  became  a  vig- 
orous colonial  minister.  He  purchased  Martinique  and  Guade- 
loupe in  the  West  Indies,  encouraged  settlements  in  San  Domingo, 
in  Canada,  and  in  Louisiana,  and  set  up  important  posts  in  India, 
in  Senegal,  and  in  Madagascar.  France,  under  Colbert,  became 
a  serious  colonial  competitor  with  her  older  European  rivals. 

Colbert  was  essentially  a  financier  and  economist.  But  to 
the  arts  of  peace,  which  adorned  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV,  he  was 
a  potent  contributor.  He  strengthened  the  French  Academy, 
which  had  been  founded  by  Richelieu,  and  himself  established 
the  Academy  of  Sciences,  now  called  the  Institute  of  France, 
and  the  great  astronomical  observatory  at  Paris.  He  pensioned 
many  writers,  and  attracted  foreign  artists  and  scientists  to 
France.  Many  buildings  and  triumphal  arches  were  erected 
under  his  patronage. 

In  the  arts  of  war,  Louis  XIV  possessed  an  equally  able  and 
hard-working  assistant.  Louvois  (1641-1691)  was  one  of  the 
greatest  war  ministers  that  the  world  has  ever  seen. 
and^French  ^^  recruited  and  supported  the  largest  and  finest 
Militarism  standing  army  of  his  day.  He  introduced  severe 
Loufs^xiv  regulations  and  discipline.  He  prescribed,  for  the 
first  time  in  history,  a  distinctive  military  uniform 
and  introduced  the  custom  of  marching  in  step.  Under  his 
supervision,  camp  life  was  placed  upon  a  sanitary  basis.  And 
under  his  influence,  promotion  in  the  service  no  longer  depended 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL    RIVALRY  241 

primarily  on  social  position  but  upon  merit  as  well.  In  Vauban 
(1633-1707),  Louvois  had  the  greatest  military  engineer  in 
history  —  for  it  was  Vauban  who  built  those  rows  of  superb 
fortifications  on  the  northern  and  eastern  frontiers  of  France. 
In  Conde  and  Turenne,  moreover,  Louvois  had  first-class  generals 
who  could  give  immediate  effect  to  his  reforms  and  policies. 

Thus  was   the   Grand  Monarch  well   and   faithfully  served. 
Yet  the  outward  show  and  glamour  of  his  reign  were  very  decep- 
tive of  the  true  internal  conditions.     Colbert  tried  to  Deceptive 
do  too  many  things,  with  the  result  that  his  plans  Character 
repeatedly  miscarried.     The  nobles  became  more  in-  Glamour  of 
dolent,  wasteful,  and  pleasure-loving,  and  the  middle  the  Age  of 
class  more  selfish  and  more  devoted  to  their  own  class     °"'^ 
interests,  while  the  lot  of  the  peasantry,  —  the  bulk  of  the  na- 
tion, —  despite  the  spasmodic  efl'orts    of    the  paternal  govern- 
ment,   steadily   grew   worse   under    the   unrelieved   burden   of 
taxation.     Then,  too,  the  king  was  extravagant  in  maintaining 
his  mistresses,  his  court,  and  his  favorites.     His  excessive  vanity 
had   to   be   appeased   by   expensive   entertainment   and   show. 
He  preferred  the  spectacular  but  woeful  feats  of  arms  to  the 
less  pretentious  but  more  solid  triumphs  of  peace.     Indeed,  in 
course  of  time,  Colbert  found  his  influence  with  the  king  waning 
before  that  of  Louvois,  and  when  he  died  it  was  with  the  bitter 
thought  that  his  financial  retrenchment  had  been  in  vain,  that 
his  husbanded  resources  were  being  rapidly  dissipated  in  foreign 
war.     It  was  Louis's  wars  that  deprived  his  reign  of  true  grandeur 
and  paved  the  way  for  future  disaster. 

Before  turning  our  attention  to  the  foreign  wars  of  Louis  XIV, 
mention  must  be  made  of  another  blot  on  his  reign.     It  was 
Louis    XIV    who    renewed    the    persecution    of    the  Revocation 
Protestants.     He  was  moved  alike  by  the  absolutist's  °V:^®  ^ 

■^  Edict  of 

desire  to  secure  complete  uniformity  throughout  Nantes, 
France  and  by  the  penitent's  rehgious  fervor  to  ^^^s 
make  amends  for  earlier  scandals  of  his  private  life.  For  a 
time  he  contented  himself  with  so-called  dragonnades  —  quar- 
tering hcentious  soldiers  upon  the  Huguenots  —  but  at  length 
in  1685  he  formally  revoked  the  Edict  of  Nantes.  France, 
which  for  almost  a  century  had  led  Europe  in  the  principle 
and  practice  of  religious  toleration,  was  henceforth  reactionary. 


242  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

Huguenots  were  still  granted  liberty  of  conscience,  but  were  denied 
freedom  of  worship  and  deprived  of  all  civil  rights  in  the  kingdom. 
The  immediate  effect  of  this  arbitrary  and  mistaken  action  was 
the  emigration  of  large  numbers  of  industrious  and  valuable  citi- 
zens, who  added  materially  to  the  political  and  economic  life  of 
England,  Holland,  and  Prussia,  the  chief  Protestant  foes  of 
France. 

EXTENSION  OF  FRENCH  FRONTIERS 

Louis  XIV  was  not  a  soldier  himself.  He  never  appeared  in 
military  uniform  or  rode  at  the  head  of  his  troops.  What  he 
lacked,  however,  in  personal  genius  as  a  great  military  com- 
mander, he  compensated  for  in  a  genuine  fondness  for  war  and 
in  remarkable  personal  gifts  of  diplomacy.  He  was  one  of 
the  greatest  diplomats  of  his  age,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  he 
possessed  large  loyal  armies  and  able  generals  that  he  could 
employ  in  prosecuting  the  traditional  foreign  pohcy  of  France. 

This  foreign  pohcy,  which  had  been  pursued  by  Francis  I, 
Henry  II,  Henry  IV,  RicheHeu,  and  Mazarin,  had  for  its  goal 
the  humiliation  of  the  powerful  Habsburgs,  whether 
Foreign  of  Austria  or  of  Spain.  Although  France  had  gained 
Policy  of  materially  at  their  expense  in  the  treaties  of  West- 
phaha  and  of  the  Pyrenees,  much  remained  to  be 
done  by  Louis  XIV.  When  the  Grand  Monarch  assumed 
direct  control  of  affairs  in  1661,  the  Spanish  Habsburgs  still 
ruled  not  only  the  peninsular  kingdom  south  of  France,  but  the 
Belgian  Netherlands  to  the  north,  Franche  Comte  to  the  east, 
and  Milan  in  northern  Italy,  while  their  kinsmen  of  Austria 
maintained  shadowy  imperial  government  over  the  rich  Rhenish 
provinces  on  the  northeastern  boundary  of  France.  France 
was  still  almost  completely  encircled  by  Habsburg  holdings. 

To  justify  his  subsequent  aggressions,  Louis  XIV  propounded 
the  doctrine  of  "natural  boundaries."  Every  country,  he  main- 
Doctrine  of  tained,  should  secure  such  frontiers  as  nature  had 
"  Natural  obviously  provided  —  mountains,  lakes,  or  rivers  ; 
Boundaries  ^^^^  France  was  naturally  provided  with  the  frontiers 
of  ancient  Gaul  —  the  Pyrenees,  the  Alps,  the  Rhine  River,  and 
the  Ocean.  Any  foreign  monarch  or  state  that  claimed  power 
within  such  frontiers  was  an  interloper  and  should  be  expelled., 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  243 

For  many  years,   and  in  three  great  wars,  Louis  XIV  en- 
deavored, with  some  success,  to  reach  the  Rhine.     These  three 
wars  —  the  War  of  Devolution,  the  Dutch  War,  and   j^^ 
the  War  of  the  League  of  Augsburg  —  we  shall  now  Wars  of 
discuss.     A   fourth   great  war,   directed   toward   the     °"'^ 
acquisition  of  the  Spanish  throne  by  the  Bourbon  family,  will 
be  treated  separately  on  account  of  the  wide  and  varied  interests 
involved. 

The  War  of  Devolution  was  an  attempt  of  Louis  to  gain  the 
Spanish  or  Belgian  Netherlands.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
in  accordance  with  the  peace  of  the  Pyrenees,  Louis  j^ie 
had  married  Maria  Theresa,  the  eldest  daughter  of  "  War  of 
Philip  IV  of  Spain.  Now  by  a  subsequent  marriage  ^voution 
Philip  IV  had  had  a  son,  a  weak-bodied,  half-witted  prince, 
who  came  to  the  throne  in  1665  as  Charles  II.  Louis  XIV  at 
once  took  advantage  of  this  turn  of  affairs  to  assert  in  behalf 
of  his  wife  a  claim  to  a  portion  of  the  Spanish  inheritance.  The 
claim  was  based  on  a  curious  custom  which  had  prevailed  in 
the  inheritance  of  private  property  in  the  Netherlands,  to  the 
effect  that  children  of  a  first  marriage  should  inherit  to  the 
exclusion  of  those  of  a  subsequent  marriage.  Louis  insisted 
that  this  custom,  called  "devolution,"  should  be  appHed  not 
only  to  private  property  but  also  to  sovereignty  and  that  his 
wife  should  be  recognized,  therefore,  as  sovereign  of  the  Belgian 
Netherlands.  In  reality  the  claim  was  a  pure  invention,  but 
the  French  king  thought  it  would  be  a  sufficient  apology  for 
the  robbery  of  a  weak  brother-in-law. 

Before  opening  hostilities,  Louis  XIV  made  use  of  his  diplo- 
matic wiles  in  order  to  guard  himself  against  assistance  which 
other  states  might  render  to  Spain.  In  the  first  place,  he  obtained 
promises  of  friendly  neutrality  from  Holland,  Sweden,  and  the 
Protestant  states  of  Germany  which  had  been  allied  with  France 
during  the  Thirty  Years'  War.  In  the  second  place,  he  threat- 
ened to  stir  up  another  civil  war  in  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  if 
the  Austrian  Habsburgs  should  help  their  Spanish  kinsman. 
Finally,  he  had  no  fear  of  England  because  that  country  was  in 
the  midst  of  a  pecuKarly  bitter  trade  war  with  the  Dutch. ^ 

^  It  was  on  the  eve  of  this  second  trade  war  between  England  and  Holland 
(1665-1667)  that  the  English  took  New  Amsterdam  from  the  Dutch  (1664)  and 


244  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

The  War  of  Devolution  lasted  from  1667  to  1668.  The 
well-disciplined  and  splendidly  generaled  armies  of  Louis  XIV 
jjjg  had  no  difficulty  in  occupying  the  border  fortresses 

"  Balance  in  the  Spanish  Netherlands.  The  whole  territory 
°  °^^''  would  undoubtedly  have  fallen  to  France,  had  not  a 
change  unexpectedly  occurred  in  international  affairs.  The 
trade  war  between  England  and  Holland  came  to  a  speedy  end, 
and  the  two  former  rivals  now  joined  with  Sweden  in  forming 
the  Triple  Alliance  to  arrest  the  war  and  to  put  a  stop  to  the 
French  advance.  The  "balance  of  power"  demanded,  said  the 
alHes,  that  the  other  European  states  should  combine  in  order 
to  prevent  any  one  state  from  becoming  too  powerful.  This 
plea  for  the  "balance  of  power"  was  the  reply  to  the  French 
king's  plea  for  "natural  boundaries." 

The  threats  of  the  Triple  Alliance  caused  Louis  XIV  to 
negotiate  the  treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  by  which  Spain  sur- 
rendered to  France  an  important  section  of  territory  in 
Aix-ia-  Flanders,  including  the  fortified  cities  of  Charleroi, 

^66^^'^^'  Tournai,  and  Lille,  but  still  retained  the  greater  part 
of  the  Belgian  Netherlands.  The  taste  of  the  Grand 
Monarch  was  thereby  whetted,  but  his  appetite  hardly  appeased. 

Louis  blamed  the  Dutch  for  his  rebuff.  He  was  thoroughly 
alive  to  the  fact  that  Holland  would  never  take  kindly  to  ha\dng 
Franco-  powerful  France  as  a  near  neighbor,  and  that  French 
Dutch  acquisition    of    the    Belgian    Netherlands,    therefore, 

'^^^y  would  always  be  opposed  by  the  Dutch.     Nor  were 

wounded  vanity  and  poHtical  considerations  the  only  motives 
for  the  Grand  Monarch's  second  war,  that  against  the  Dutch. 
France,  as  well  as  England,  was  now  becoming  a  commercial 
and  colonial  rival  of  Holland,  and  it  seemed  both  to  Louis  XIV 
and  to  Colbert  that  the  French  middle  class  would  be  greatly 
benefited  by  breaking  the  trade  monopolies  of  the  Dutch. 
Louis's  second  war  was  quite  as  much  a  trade  war  as  a  poHtical 
conflict. 

First,  Louis  bent  his  energies  to  breaking  up  the  Triple  AlHance 
and   isolating   Holland.     He   took  •  advantage   of   the   pohtical 

rechristened  it  New  York,  and  during  this  struggle  that  the  remarkable  Dutch 
admiral,  De  Ruyter,  burned  the  English  fleet  and  shipping  on  the  Thames  (June, 
1667). 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL    RIVALRY  245 

situation  in  England  to  arrange  (1670)  the  secret  treaty  of 
Dover  with  Charles  II,  the  king  of  that  country :  in  return  for 
a  large  pension,  which  should  free  him  from  reliance  upon  Parlia- 
ment, the  Enghsh  king  undertook  to  declare  himself  a  Roman 
Cathohc  and  to  withdraw  from  the  Triple  Alhance.  Liberal 
pensions  hkewise  bought  off  the  Swedish  government.  It 
seemed  now  as  if  Holland,  alone  and  friendless,  would  have  to 
endure  a  war  with  her  powerful  enemy.  Nor  was  Holland  in 
shape  for  a  successful  resistance.  Ever  since  she  civii  strife 
had  gained  formal  recognition  of  her  independence  *"  HoUand 
(1648),  she  had  been  torn  by  ci\al  strife.  On  one  side,  the  head 
of  the  Orange  family,  who  bore  the  title  of  stadholder,  sup- 
ported by  the  country  districts,  the  nobles,  the  Calvinistic 
clergy,  and  the  peasantry,  hoped  to  consoHdate  the  state  and 
to  estabHsh  an  hereditary  monarchy.  On  the  other  side,  the 
aristocratic  burghers  and  rehgious  Uberals,  the  townsfolk  gener- 
ally, found  an  able  leader  in  the  celebrated  Grand  Pensionary, 
John  DeWitt  (1625-1672),  who  sought  to  preserve  the  repubhc 
and  the  rights  of  the  several  proxinces.  For  over  twenty  years, 
the  latter  party  was  in  power,  but  as  the  young  prince  of  Orange, 
William  III,  grew  to  maturity,  signs  were  not  lacking  of  a  re- 
action in  favor  of  his  party. 

Under  these  circumstances,  Louis  XIV  declared  war  against 
Holland  in  1672.  French  troops  at  once  occupied  Lorraine  on 
the  pretext  that  its  duke  was  plotting  with  the  Dutch,  The  Dutch 
and  thence,  proceeding  down  the  Rhine,  past  Cologne,  ^^^ 
invaded  Holland  and  threatened  the  prosperous  city  of  Amster- 
dam. The  Dutch  people,  in  a  frenzy  of  despair,  murdered 
John  DeWitt,  whom  they  unjustly  blamed  for  their  reverses ; 
and,  at  the  order  of  the  young  William  III,  who  now  assumed 
supreme  command,  they  cut  the  dykes  and  flooded  a  large  part 
of  northern  Holland.  The  same  expedient  which  had  enabled 
them  to  expel  the  Spaniards  in  the  War  of  Independence  now 
stayed  the  \ictorious  advance  of  the  French. 

The  refusal  of  Louis  XIV  to  accept  the  advantageous  terms  of 
peace  offered  by  the  Dutch  aroused  general  apprehension  through- 
out Europe.  The  Emperor  Leopold  and  the  Great  Elector  of 
Brandenburg  made  an  offensive  alhance  with  Holland,  which 
subsequently  was  joined  by  Spain  and  several  German  states. 


246  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

The  general  struggle,  thus  precipitated,  continued  indeed  with 
success  for  France.  Turenne,  by  a  brilHant  victory,  compelled 
the  Great  Elector  to  make  peace.  The  emperor  was  defeated. 
The  war  was  carried  into  the  Spanish  Netherlands  and  Franche 
Comte. 

But  when  at  length  the  English  Parliament  compelled 
Charles  II  to  adhere  to  the  general  anti-French  alHance, 
Treaty  of  Louis  XIV  thought  it  was  time  to  make  peace.  As 
Nijmwegen,    events  proved,  it  was  not  Holland  but  Spain  that 

^  had    to   pay    the   penalties   of   Louis's   second   war. 

By  the  treaty  of  Nijmwegen,  the  former  lost  nothing,  while 
the  latter  ceded  to  France  the  long-coveted  province  of  Franche 
Comte  and  several  strong  fortresses  in  the  Belgian  Netherlands. 
France,  moreover,  continued  to  occupy  the  duchy  of  Lorraine. 

Thus,  if  Louis  XIV  had  failed  to  punish  the  insolence  of  the 

Dutch,  he  had  at  least  succeeded  in  extending  the  French  frontiers 

one  stage  nearer   the  Rhine.     He  had  become   the 

Effects  °  ,  r  1  T        •  T^  ^r 

of  the  greatest  and  most-feared  monarch  m  Europe.     Yet 

Dutch  War     fQj-   these   gains   France  paid   heavily.     The   border 

on  France 

provinces  had  been  wasted  by  war.  The  treasury  was 
empty,  and  the  necessity  of  negotiating  loans  and  increasing 
taxes  put  Colbert  in  despair.  Turenne,  the  best  general,  had 
been  killed  late  in  the  contest,  and  Conde,  on  account  of  ill 
health,  was  obliged  to  withdraw  from  active  service. 

Yet  at  the  darker  side  of  the  picture,  the  Grand  Monarch 
refused  to  look.  He  was  puffed  up  with  pride  by  his  successes 
in  war  and  diplomacy.  Like  many  another  vain,  ambitious 
ruler,  he  felt  that  what  economic  grievances  or  social  discontent 
might  exist  within  his  country  could  readily  be  forgotten  or 
obscured  in  a  blaze  of  foreign  glory  —  in  the  splendor  of  am- 
bassadors, the  glint  and  din  of  arms,  the  grim  shedding  of  human 
blood.  Having  picked  the  sanguinary  path,  and  at  first  found 
pleasure  therein,  the  Grand  Monarch  pursued  it  to  an  end  bitter 
for  his  family  and  tragic  for  his  people. 

No  sooner  was  the  Dutch  War  concluded  than  Louis  XIV 
set  out  by  a  policy  of  trickery  and  diplomacy  further  to  augment 
the  French  territories.  The  cessions,  which  the  treaties  of 
Westphaha  and  Nijmwegen  guaranteed  to  France,  had  been 
made  "with  their  dependencies."     It  now  occurred  to  Louis 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  247 

that  doubtless  in  the  old  feudal  days  of  the  middle  ages  or 
early  modern  times  some,  if  not  all,  of  his  new  acquisitions  had 
possessed  feudal  suzerainty  over  other  towns  or  terri-  ^j^^ 
tories  not  yet  incorporated  into  France.  Although  "  Chambers 
in  most  cases  such  ancient  feudal  ties  had  practically  and  ^Further 
lapsed  by  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  never-  French  An- 
theless  the  French  king  decided  to  reinvoke  them 
in  order,  if  possible,  to  add  to  his  holdings.  He  accordingly 
constituted  special  courts,  called  "Chambers  of  Reunion," 
composed  of  his  own  obedient  judges,  who  were  to  decide  what 
districts  by  right  of  ancient  feudal  usage  should  be  annexed. 
So  painstaking  and  minute  were  the  investigations  of  these 
Chambers  of  Reunion  that  they  adjudged  to  their  own  country, 
France,  no  less  than  twenty  important  towns  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  including  Luxemburg  and  Strassburg.  Nothing  seemed 
to  prevent  the  prompt  execution  of  these  judgments  by  the 
French  king.  He  had  kept  his  army  on  a  war  footing.  The 
king  of  England  was  again  in  his  pay  and  his  alliance.  The 
emperor  was  hard  pressed  by  an  invasion  of  the  Ottoman  Turks. 
Armed  imperial  resistance  at  Strassburg  was  quickly  overcome 
(1681),  and  Vauban,  the  great  engineer,  proceeded  to  make  that 
city  the  chief  French  fortress  upon  the  Rhine.  A  weak  effort  of 
the  Spanish  monarch  to  protect  Luxemburg  from  French  aggres- 
sion was  doomed  to  dismal  failure  (1684). 

Alarmed  by  the  steady  advance  of  French  power,  the  Emperor 
Leopold  in  1686  succeeded  in  forming  the  League  of  Augsburg 
with  Spain,  Sweden,  and  several   German  princes,  in  order  to 
preserve  the  territorial  integrity  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire. 
Nor  was  it  long  before  the  League  of  Augsburg  was  called  upon 
to  resist  further  encroachments  of  the  French  king.     In   1688 
Louis  dispatched  a  large  army  into  the  Rhenish  Palatinate  to 
enforce  a  preposterous  claim  which  he  had  advanced 
to  that  valuable  district.     The  war  which  resulted  League  of^ 
was  Louis's  third  struggle,   and  has  been  variously  Augsburg 
styled  the  War  of  the  League  of  Augsburg  or  the  War  pai°atinate 
of  the  Palatinate.     In  America,  where  it  was  to  be 
paralleled  by  an  opening  conflict  between  French  and  English 
colonists,  it  has  been  known  as  King  William's  War. 

In  his  first  two  wars,  Louis  XIV  could  count  upon  the  neu- 


248  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

trality,  if  not  the  friendly  aid,  of  the  English.  Their  king  was 
dependent  upon  him  for  financial  support  in  maintaining  an 
absolutist  government.  Their  influential  commercial  and  trad- 
ing classes,  who  still  suffered  more  from  Dutch  than  from  French 
rivalry,  displayed  no  anxiety  to  mix  unduly  in  the  dynastic 
conflicts  on  the  Continent.  Louis  had  an  idea  that  he  could 
count  upon  the  continuation  of  the  same  English  policy ;  he 
was  certainly  on  good  terms  with  the  English  king,  James  II 
(1685-1688).  But  the  deciding  factor  in  England  and  in  the 
war  was  destined  to  be  not  the  subservient  James  II  but  the 

implacable  WilUam  III.  This  William  III,^  as  stad- 
stadhdder'  hoWer  of  Holland,  had  long  been  a  stubborn  opponent 
of  Holland  of  Louis  XIV  on  the  Continent ;  he  had  repeatedly 
of' England     displayed  his  ability  as  a  warrior  and  as  a  cool,  crafty 

schemer.  Through  his  marriage  with  the  princess 
Mary,  elder  daughter  of  James  II,  he  now  managed  adroitly 
to  ingratiate  himself  with  the  Protestant,  parliamentary,  and 
commercial  parties  in  England  that  were  opposing  the  Catholic, 
absolutist,  and  tyrannical  policies  of  James. 

We  shall  presently  see  that  the  English  Revolution  of  1688, 
which  drove  James  II  into  exile,  was  a  decisive  step  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  constitutional  government  in  England.  It  was 
likewise  of  supreme  importance  in  its  effects  upon  the  foreign 
policy  of  Louis  XIV,  for  it  called  to  the  English  throne  the  son- 
in-law  of  James,  Wilham  III,  the  stadholder  of  Holland  and 
arch  enemy  of  the  French  king. 

England,  under  the  guidance  of  her  new  sovereign,  promptly 
joined  the  League  of  Augsburg,  and  declared  war  against  France. 
„    .    .         Trade  rivalries  between  Holland  and  England  were  in 

Beginning  ,       .    ,  . 

of  a  new  large  part  composed,  and  the  colonial  empires  of  the 

Hundred  ^^q  gtates,  now  United  under  a  joint  ruler,  naturally 

between  Came  iiito  Conflict  with  the  colonial  empire  of  France. 

France  and  xhus,  in  addition  to  the  difficulties  which  the  Bourbons 

England  .  ,     .       ,  .      . 

encountered  m  promoting  their  dynastic  interests  on 
the  continent  of  Europe,  they  were  henceforth  confronted  by  a 
vast  colonial  and  commercial  struggle  with  England.  It  was  the 
beginning  of  a  Flundred  Years'  War  that  was  to  be  fought  for 
the  mastery  of  India  and  America. 

^  William  III  (1650-1702),  Dutch  stadholder  in  1672  and  British  king  in  1689. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  249 

Louis  XIV  never  seemed  to  appreciate  the  importance  of  the 
colonial  side  of  the  contest.  He  was  too  much  engrossed  in 
his  ambition  of  stretching  French  boundaries  to  the  Rhine. 
So  in  discussing  the  War  of  the  League  of  Augsburg  as  well  as 
the  subsequent  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession,  we  shall  devote 
our  attention  in  this  chapter  primarily  to  the  European  and 
dynastic  elements,  reserving  the  account  of  the  parallel  colonial 
struggle  to  a  later  chapter  on  the  "World  Conflict  of  France  and 
Great  Britain." 

The  War  of  the  League  of  Augsburg,  Louis'  third  war,  lasted 
from  1689  to  1697.  Notwithstanding  the  loss  of  Turenne  and 
Conde,  the  splendidly  organized  French  armies  were  able  to 
hold  the  allies  at  bay  and  to  save  their  country  from  invasion. 
They  even  won  several  victories  on  the  frontier.  But  on  the 
sea,  the  struggle  was  less  successful  for  Louis,  and  a  French 
expedition  to  Ireland  in  favor  of  James  II  proved  disastrous. 
After  many  years  of  strife,  ruinous  to  all  the  combatants,  the 
Grand  Monarch  sued  for  peace. 

By  the  treaty  of  Ryswick,  w^hich  concluded  the  War  of  the 
League  of  Augsburg,  Louis  XIV  (i)  surrendered  nearly  all  the 
places  adjudged  to  him  by  the  Chambers  of  Reunion,   ^j^^  Treaty 
except  Strassburg ;    (2)  allowed  the  Dutch  to  garrison  of  Ryswick, 
the  chief  fortresses  in  the  Spanish  Netherlands  as  a   ^  ^^ 
"barrier"  against  French  aggression;    (3)  granted  the  Dutch 
a   favorable    commercial    treaty ;    (4)  restored  Lorraine  to  its 
duke;    (5)    abandoned   his   claim   to   the   Palatinate;     (6)    ac- 
knowledged William  III  as  king  of  England  and  promised  to 
support  no  attempt  against  his  throne.     Thus,  the  French  king 
lost  no  territory,  —  in  fact,  he  obtained  full  recognition  of  his 
ownership  of  the  whole  province  of  Alsace,  —  but  his  reputation 
and  vanity  had  been  uncomfortably  wounded. 

THE   WAR  OF  THE   SPANISH  SUCCESSION 

One  of  the  main  reasons  that  prompted  Louis  XIV  to  sue  for 
peace  and  to  abandon  his  claims  on  Lorraine  and  the  Palatinate 
was  the  rapid  physical  decHne  of  the  inglorious  Spanish  monarch, 
Charles  II,  of  whose  enormous  possessions  the  French  king 
hoped  by  diplomacy  and  intrigue  to  secure  valuable  portions. 


250  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Spain  was  still  a  great  power.  Under  its  crown  were  gathered 
not  only  the  ancient  kingdoms  of  Castile,  Aragon,  and  Navarre 
^jjg  in  the  Spanish  peninsula,  but  the  greater  part  of  the 

Spanish  Belgian  Netherlands,  and  in  Italy  the  kingdom  of  the 
Inheritance  ^^^  SiciMes,  the  duchy  of  Milan,  and  the  control  of 
Tuscany,  as  well  as  the  huge  colonial  empire  in  America  and  the 
Philippines.  At  the  time  when  kings  were  absolute  rulers  and 
reckoned  their  territories  as  personal  possessions,  much  de- 
pended upon  the  royal  succession. 

Now  it  happened  that  the  Spanish  Habsburgs  were  dying 
out  in  the  male  line.  Charles  II  was  himself  without  children 
Tjjg  or  brothers.     Of  his  sisters,  the  elder  was  the  wife  of 

Spanish  Louis  XIV  and  the  younger  was  married  to  the 
uccession  Ej-Qpgj-Qr  Leopold,  the  heir  of  the  Austrian  Habsburgs. 
Louis  XIV  had  renounced  by  the  peace  of  the  Pyrenees  (1659) 
all  claims  to  the  Spanish  throne  on  condition  that  a  large  dowry 
be  paid  him,  but  the  impoverished  state  of  the  Spanish  ex- 
chequer had  prevented  the  payment  of  the  dowry.  Louis, 
therefore,  might  lay  claim  to  the  whole  inheritance  of  Charles  II 
and  entertain  the  hope  of  seeing  the  Bourbons  supplant  the 
Habsburgs  in  some  of  the  fairest  lands  of  Christendom.  In 
opposition  to  the  French  contention,  the  emperor  was  prop- 
erly moved  by  family  pride  to  put  forth  the  claim  of  his  wife 
and  that  of  himself  as  the  nearest  male  relative  of  the  Spanish 
king.  If  the  contention  of  Leopold  were  sustained,  a  single 
Habsburg  ruler  might  once  more  unite  an  empire  as  vast  as 
that  which  the  Emperor  Charles  V  had  once  ruled.  On  the  other 
side,  if  the  ambition  of  Louis  XIV  were  realized,  a  new  and 
formidable  Bourbon  empire  would  be  erected.  In  either  case 
the  European  "balance  of  power"  would  be  destroyed. 

Bound  up  with  the  poHtical  problem  in  Europe  were  grave 
commercial  and  colonial  questions.  According  to  the  mer- 
cantilist theories  that  flourished  throughout  the  seven- 
an™"^"^"  teenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  every  country  which 
Colonial  posscssed  colonies  should  reserve  trade  privileges  with 
tions^''^^  them  exclusively  to  its  own  citizens.  So  long  as 
France  and  Spain  were  separate  and  each  was  only 
moderately  powerful,  their  commercial  rivals,  notably  England 
and  Holland,  might  hope  to  gain  special  trade-concessions  from 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  251 

time  to  time  in  French  or  Spanish  colonies.  But  once  the  colo- 
nial empires  of  France  and  Spain  were  united  under  a  joint  ruler, 
such  a  vast  monopoly  would  be  created  as  would  effectually  pre- 
vent the  expansion  of  Enghsh  or  Dutch  commerce  while  it 
heightened  the  economic  prosperity  of  the  Bourbon  subjects. 

It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  William  III,  as  stadholder  of 
Holland  and  king  of  England,  should  hold  the  balance  of  power 
between  the  Austrian  Habsburgs  and  the  French  Bour-*  . 

n      T       I         ,    '  •         1     1  •      r  Attempts  to 

bons.     Both  the  claimants  appreciated  this  fact  and  partition 
understood  that  neither  would  be  allowed  peacefully  *^f  Spanish 

.  .  ,      .    ,       .  T       Innentance 

to  appropriate  the  entire  Spanish  inheritance.  In 
fact,  several  ''partition  treaties"  were  patched  up  between 
Louis  and  WilHam  III,  with  a  view  to  maintaining  the  balance 
of  power  and  preventing  either  France  or  Austria  from  unduly 
increasing  its  power.  But  flaws  were  repeatedly  found  in  the 
treaties,  and,  as  time  went  on,  the  problem  grew  more  vexatious. 
After  the  conclusion  of  the  peace  of  Ryswick,  Louis  XIV  was 
absorbed  in  the  game  of  di\dding  the  property  of  the  dying 
Spanish  king.  One  of  the  very  greatest  triumphs  of  Louis' 
diplomatic  art  was  the  way  in  which  he  ingratiated  himself  in 
Spanish  favor.  It  must  be  remembered  that  it  was  Spain 
which  the  Grand  Monarch  had  attacked  and  despoiled  in  his 
earlier  wars  of  aggrandizement,  and  neither  the  Spanish  court 
nor  the  Spanish  people  could  have  many  patriotic  motives 
for  loving  him.  Yet  such  was  his  tact  and  his  finesse  that 
within  three  years  after  the  treaty  of  Ryswick  he  had  secured 
the  respect  of  the  feeble  Charles  II  and  the  gratitude  of  the 
Spanish  people. 

A   month   before  his  pitiful  death    (1700),    Charles   II,    the 
last   of   the   Spanish   Habsburgs,    summoned   all   his    strength 
and  dictated  a  will  that  awarded  his  whole  inheritance  -^^  ^f 
to  Philip  of  Anjou,  the  grandson  of  Louis  XIV,  with  Charles  11 
the   resolute   proviso    that   under   no    circumstances  pavor^ofthe 
should    the    Spanish    possessions    be    dismembered.   French 
When  the  news  reached  Versailles,  the  Grand  Mon-  ^°^*'°^^ 
arch  hesitated.     He  knew  that  acceptance  meant  war  at  least 
with  Austria,  probably  with  England.     Perhaps  he  thought  of 
the  wretched  condition  into  which  his  other  wars  had  plunged 
his  people. 


252  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Hesitation  was  but  an  interlude.     Ambition  triumphed  over 

fear,  and  the  glory  of  the  royal  family  over  the  welfare  of  France. 

In  the  great  hall  of  mirrors  at  Versailles,  the  Grand 
Acceptance 

of  the  Monarch  heralded  his  grandson  as  Philip  V,  the  first 

T^^^-^XTv  Bourbon  king  of  Spain.  And  when  Philip  left  for 
Madrid,  his  now  aged  grandfather  kissed  him,  and  the 
Spanish  ambassador  exultantly  declared  that  "the  Pyrenees  no 
longer  exist." 

Anticipating  the  inevitable  outbreak  of  hostihties,  Louis  pro- 
ceeded to  violate  the  treaty  of  Ryswick  by  seizing  the  "barrier" 
fortresses  from  the  Dutch  and  by  recognizing  the  son  of  James  II  as 
king  of  England.  He  then  made  hasty  alHances  with  Bavaria  and 
Savoy,  and  called  out  the  combined  armies  of  France  and  Spain. 

Meanwhile,  William  III  and  the  Emperor  Leopold  formed  the 
Grand  Alliance,  to  which  at  first  England,  Holland,  Austria, 
^,    ^      .     and   the   German   electors    of    Brandenburg-Prussia, 

The  Grand  .  ° 

AiUance         Hanover,  and  the  Palatinate  adhered.     Subsequently, 
against  the     Portugal,  by  means  of  a  favorable  commercial  treaty 

Bourbons  •  i  i  •  •    •  • 

With  England,^  was  induced  to  join  the  alliance,  and 
the  duke  of  Savoy  abandoned  France  in  favor  of  Austria  with 
the  understanding  that  his  country  should  be  recognized  as  a 
kingdom.  The  alhes  demanded  that  the  Spanish  crown  should 
pass  to  the  Archduke  Charles,  the  grandson  of  the  emperor, 
that  Spanish  trade  monopolies  should  be  broken,  and  that 
the  power  of  the  French  king  should  be  curtailed. 

The  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession  —  the  fourth  and  final 
war  of  Louis  XIV  —  lasted  from  1702  to  17 13.  Although 
^,    „,  William  III  died  at  its  very  commencement,  he  was 

The  vv  3.r 

of  the  certain  that  it  would  be  vigorously  pushed  by  the 

Spanish  English  government  of  his  sister-in-law,  Queen  Anne 
(1702-17 14).  The  bitter  struggle  on  the  high  seas 
and  in  the  colonies,  where  it  was  known  as  Queen  Anne's  War, 
will  be  treated  in  another  place."  The  military  campaigns  in 
Europe  were  on  a  larger  scale  than  had  hitherto  been  known. 
Fighting  was  carried  on  in  the  Netherlands,  in  the  southern 
Germanics,  in  Italy,  and  in  Spain. 

The  tide  of  war  turned  steadily  for  several  years  against  the 
Bourbons.     The  allies  possessed  the  ablest  generals  of  the  time 

^  The  "Methuen  Treaty"  (1703).  2  g^e  below,  p.  308. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  253 

in  the  duke  of  Marlborough  (1650-1722),  the  conscientious 
self-possessed  English  commander,  and  in  the  skillful  and  daring 
Prince  Eugene  of  Savoy  (i 663-1 736).  The  great  battle  of 
Blenheim  (1704)  drove  the  French  from  the  Holy  Roman  Em- 
pire, and  the  capture  of  Gibraltar  (1704)  gave  England  a  foot- 
hold in  Spain  and  a  naval  base  for  the  Mediterranean.  Prince 
Eugene  crowded  the  French  out  of  Italy  (1706);  and  by  the 
victories  of  RamilKes  (1706),  Oudenarde  (1708),  and  Malplaquet 
(1709),  Marlborough  cleared  the  Netherlands.  On  land  and  sea 
one  reverse  followed  another.  The  allies  at  length  were  advanc- 
ing on  French  soil.  It  appeared  inevitable  that  they  would 
settle  peace  at  Paris  on  their  own  terms. 

Then  it  was  that  Louis  XIV  displayed  an  energy  and  devotion 
worthy  of  a  better  cause.  He  appealed  straight  to  the  patriotism 
of  his  people.  He  set  an  example  of  untiring  appHcation  to  toil. 
Nor  was  he  disappointed  in  his  expectations.  New  recruits 
hurried  to  the  front ;  rich  and  poor  poured  in  their  contribu- 
tions ;  a  supreme  effort  was  made  to  stay  the  advancing  enemy. 

The  fact  that  Louis  XIV  was  not  worse  punished  was  due  to 
this  remarkable  uprising  of  the  French  and  Spanish  nations 
and  likewise  to  dissensions  among  the  allies.  A  change  of 
ministry  in  England  led  to  the  disgrace  and  retirement  of  the 
duke  of  Marlborough  and  made  that  country  lukewarm  in 
prosecuting  the  war.  Then,  too,  the  unexpected  accession  of 
the  Archduke  Charles  to  the  imperial  and  Austrian  thrones 
(171 1)  now  rendered  the  claims  of  the  allies'  candidate  for  the 
Spanish  throne  as  menacing  to  the  European  balance  of  power  as 
would  be  the  recognition  of  the  French  claimant,  Philip  of  Bourbon. 

These  circumstances  made  possible  the  conclusion  of  the 
peace  of  Utrecht,  with  the  following  major  provisions : 

(i)  Philip   V,    grandson   of   Louis   XIV,    was   acknowledged 
king  of  Spain  and  the  Indies,  on  condition  that  the  crowns  of 
France  and  Spain  should  never  be  united.     (2)  The 
Austrian   Habsburgs   were   indemnified   by   securing  peace 
Naples,   Sardinia,^   Milan,   and  the  Belgian  Nether-  of  Utrecht, 
lands.     The  last-named,  which  had  been  called  the 
Spanish  Netherlands  since  the  days  of  Philip  II,  were  hence- 
forth for  a  century  styled  the  Austrian  Netherlands. 

^  By  the  treaty  of  London  (1720),  Austria  exchanged  Sardinia  for  Sicily. 


254  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

(3)  England  received  the  lion's  share  of  the  spoils.  She  ob- 
tained Newfoundland,  Acadia  (Nova  Scotia),  and  Hudson  Bay 
from  France,  and  Gibraltar  and  Minorca  from  Spain.  She  also 
secured  a  preferential  tariff  for  her  imports  into  the  great  port 
of  Cadiz,  the  monopoly  of  the  slave  trade,  and  the  right  of  send- 
ing one  ship  of  merchandise  a  year  to  the  Spanish  colonies. 
France  promised  not  to  assist  the  Stuarts  in  their  attempts  to 
regain  the  English  throne. 

(4)  The  Dutch  recovered  the  "barrier"  fortresses  and  for 
garrisoning  them  were  promised  financial  aid  by  Austria.  The 
Dutch  were  also  allowed  to  estabhsh  a  trade  monopoly  on  the 
River  Scheldt. 

(5)  The  elector  of  Brandenburg  was  acknowledged  king  of 
Prussia,  an  important  step  in  the  fortunes  of  the  HohenzoUern 
family  which  at  the  present  time  reigns  in  Germany. 

(6)  The  duchy  of  Savoy  was  recognized  similarly  as  a  kingdom 
and  was  given  the  island  of  Sicily.^  From  the  house  of  Savoy 
has  descended  the  reigning  sovereign  of  present-day  Italy. 

The  peace  of  Utrecht  marked  the  cessation  of  a  long  conflict 
between  Spanish  Habsburgs  and  French  Bourbons.  For  nearly 
„.    .„  a  century  thereafter  both  France  and  Spain  pursued 

Significance       .     .,         /      .  t   •        r  i  .  ^ 

of  the  Similar  foreign  pohcies  for  the  common  mterests  of 

Settlement     ^}^g  Bourbon  family.     Bourbon  sovereigns  have  con- 

of  Utrecht         ,  ,.,..  .  ..„. 

tinned,  with  few  mterruptions,  to  reign  m  Spam  to 
the  present  moment. 

The  Habsburg  influence,  however,  remained  paramount  in 
Austria,  in  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  in  Italy,  and  in  the  Belgian 
Netherlands.  It  was  against  this  predominance  that  the  Bour- 
bons were  to  direct  their  dynastic  policies  throughout  the  greater 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  peace  of  Utrecht  likewise  marked  the  rise  of  English 
power  upon  the  seas  and  the  gradual  elimination  of  France  as  a 
successful  competitor  in  the  race  for  colonial  mastery.  Two 
states  also  came  into  prominence  upon  the  continent  of  Europe 
—  Prussia  and  Savoy  —  about  which  the  new  German  Empire 
and  the  unified  Italian  Kingdom  were  respectively  to  be  builded. 

'The  title  of  king  was  recognized  by  the  emperor  only  in  1720,  when  Savoy 
exchanged  Sicily  for  Sardinia.  Henceforth  the  kingdom  of  Savoy  was  usually 
referred  to  as  the  kingdom  of  Sardinia. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  255 

While  France  was  shorn  of  none  of  her  European  conquests, 
nevertheless  the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession  was  exceedingly 
disastrous  for  that  country.     In  its  wake  came  famine  ,    ^  „ 
and  pestilence,  excessive  imposts  and  taxes,  official  of  the 
debasement   of   the   currency,    and   bankruptcy  —  a  95^"^  ,. 

'.      ,.         ,  T        •    -»7-Txr    Monarch 

long  line  ot  social  and  economic  disorders.  Louis  XIV 
survived  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  but  two  years,  and  to  such  depths 
had  his  prestige  and  glory  fallen  among  his  own  people,  that 
his  corpse,  as  it  passed  along  the  royal  road  to  the  stately  tombs 
of  the  French  kings  at  St.  Denis,  "was  saluted  by  the  curses 
of  a  noisy  crowd  sitting  in  the  wine-rooms,  celebrating  his  death 
by  drinking  more  than  their  fill  as  a  compensation  for  having 
suffered  too  much  from  hunger  during  his  lifetime.  Such  was 
the  coarse  but  true  epitaph  which  popular  opinion  accorded  to 
the  Grand  Monarch." 

Nor  had  the  immediate  future  much  better  things  in  store 
for    exhausted    France.     The    successor    upon    the    absolutist 
throne  was  Louis  XV,  great-grandson  of  Louis  XIV  Misgovem- 
and  a  boy  of  five  years  of  age,  who  did  not  under-  ment  of 
take  to  exercise  personal  power  until  near  the  middle  during 
of    the   eighteenth   century.     In    the   meantime    the  Minority  of 
country  was  governed  for  about  eight  years  by  the     °"^^ 
king's  uncle,  the  duke  of  Orleans,  and  then  for  twenty  years 
by  Cardinal  Fleury. 

Orleans  loved  pleasure  and  gave  himself  to  a  Hfe  of  debauchery ; 
he  cared  little  for  the  boy-king,  whose  education  and  training  he 
grievously  neglected.  His  foreign  policy  was  weak 
and  vacillating,  and  his  several  efforts  to  reform 
abuses  in  the  political  and  economic  institutions  of  Louis  XIV 
invariably  ended  in  failure.  It  was  while  experimenting  with 
the  disorganized  finances  that  he  was  duped  by  a  Scotch  adven- 
turer and  promoter,  a  certain  John  Law  (1671-1729).  Law 
had  an  idea  that  a  gigantic  corporation  might  be  formed  for 
French  colonial  trade, ^  shares  might  be  widely  sold  throughout 
the  country,  and  the  proceeds  therefrom  utilized  to  wipe  out  the 
public  debt.  Orleans  accepted  the  scheme  and  for  a  while  the 
country  went  mad  with  the  fever  of  speculation.  In  due  time, 
however,  the  stock  was  discovered  to  be  worthless,  the  bubble 

^  Law's  corporation  was  actually  important  in  the  development  of  Louisiana. 


256  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

burst,  and  a  terrible  panic  ensued.  The  net  result  was  in- 
creased misery  for  the  nation. 

The  little  sense  which  Orleans  possessed  was  sufficient  to 
keep  him  out  of  foreign  war/  but  even  that  was  lacking  to  his 
successor,  Cardinal  Fleury.  Fleury  was  dragged  into 
the"wa/"  a  war  (i 733-1 738)  with  Austria  and  Russia  over  the 
of  the  election  of  a  Polish  king.     The  alhes  supported  the 

EkcUon  elector  of  Saxony ;  France  supported  a  Pole,  the 
father-in-law  of  Louis  XV,  Stanislaus  Leszczinski. 
France  was  defeated  and  Louis  XV  had  to  content  himself 
with  securing  the  duchy  of  Lorraine  for  his  father-in-law.  Thus, 
family  ambition  merely  added  to  the  economic  distress  of  the 
French  people. 

It  was  during  the  War  of  the  Polish  Election,  however,  that 
the  Bourbon  king  of  Spain,  perceiving  his  rivals  engaged  else- 
where, seized  the  kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies  from  Austria 
and  put  a  member  of  his  own  family  on  its  throne.  Thus,  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  the  Bourbons  dominated  France,  Spain, 
and  southern  Italy. 

'  France  was  at  peace  throughout  his  regency,  except  for  a  brief  time  (1719- 
1 720)  when  Orleans  joined  the  British  government  in  preventing  his  Spanish  cousin, 
Philip  V,  from  upsetting  the  treaty  of  Utrecht. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY 


257 


258 


HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 


THE   BOURBON   FAMILY,    1589-1915 
KINGS   OF   FR.\NCE,   SPAIN,   AND   NAPLES 


Louis  XIV,  of  France 

(1643-1715) 

I 

Louis  (dauphin), 

d.  1711 


Louis,  Duke  of 
Burgundy,  d.  171 


Henry  IV,  of  France 

(1589-1610) 

I 

Louis  XIII,  of  France 

(1610-1643) 

I 


Philip  V,  of  Spain 
(1700-1746) 


Philip,  Duke  of 
Orleans,  d.  1701 

Philip,  Duke  of 

Orleans, 

Regent  of 

France,  d.  1723 

I 
Louis,  Duke  of 
Orleans,  d.  1752 


Louis  XV,  of  France 

(171S-1774) 


Ferdinand  VI, 

of  Spain 

(1746-1759) 


Charles  III, 

of  Naples  (i73S-i759). 

of  Spain  (1759-1788) 


Louis  (dauphin),                          Charles  IV,  Ferdinand  I 

d.  1765                                        of  Spain  of  Naples 

I                                            (1788-1808)  (1759-1825) 

I                         \                         I                        I  i                     I 

Louis  XVI,  Louis  XVIII,  Charles  X,  Ferdinand  VII,  Charles,     Francis  I, 

of  France        of  France         of  France           of  Spain  Pretender     of  Naples 


(1774-1793)    (1814-1824)    (1S24-1830) 


Louis  XVII, 

of  France, 

never  reigned, 

d.  1795 


(180S-1833)  (Don  Carlos),  (1825-1830) 
d.  1855 


Charles,      Isabella  II 
Duke  of  of  Spain 

Berry,         (1833-1868; 
murdered  1820  i 

Henrj',        Alphonso  XII, 
Duke  of  of  Spain 

Bordeaux  and      (1874-1885) 


Charles,  John, 
Pretender, 
d.  1861 


Louis  Philippe, 

Duke  of  Orleans, 

d.  1785 


Philip,  Duke  of 

Orleans 

(Egalite),  d.  1793 


Louis  Philippe, 
of  France 
(1830-1848) 


Ferdinand  II, 
of  Naples 
(1830-1859) 


Ferdinand, 

Duke  of 

Orleans,  d.  18 


Count  of 
Chambord, 
d. 


Charles,    Fr.\ncis  II, 
Pretender     of  Naples, 
(Don  Carlos),   deposed 
d.  1909 


i860, 
d.  1894 


Alphonso  XIII,  Jaime, 

King  of  Spain     Pretender  to  the 
(1886-        )       throne  of  Spain, 
b. 1870 


Louis  Philippe, 

Count  of  Paris, 

d.  1894 


Louis  Philippe, 

Bourbon- 

Orleanist 

Pretender  to 

throne  of  France 

191S 


ADDITIONAL  READING 


General.  Brief  accounts:  J.  H.  Robinson  and  C.  A.  Beard,  The  De- 
velopment of  Modern  Europe,  Vol.  I  (1907),  ch.  i-iii ;  H.  O.  Wakeman, 
The  Ascendancy  of  France,  i^g8~iyi^  (1894),  ch.  ix-xi,  xiv,  xv ;  A.  H. 
Johnson,  The  Age  of  the  Enlightened  Despot,  iddo-iySg  (1910),  ch  i-iii, 
vi;  J.  H.  Sacret,  Bourbon  and  Vasa,  1610-1715  (1914),  ch.  viii-xii ;  Arthur 
Hassall,  Louis  XIV  and  the  Zenith  of  the  French  Monarchy  (1897)  in  the 
"  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series ;  H.  T.  Dyer,  A  History  of  Modern  Europe 
from  the  Fall  of  Constantinople,  3d  ed.  rev.  by  Arthur  Hassall   (1901),  ch. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  259 

xxxvii,  xxxix-xl,  xlii-xliv ;  A.  J.  Grant,  The  French  Monarchy,  i4Sj-iy89, 
Vol.  II  (iQoo),  ch.  x-xvi;  G.  W.  Kitchin,  .1  History  of  France,  Vol.  Ill 
(iSgg),  Books  \'  and  \'I,  ch.  i,  ii;  Victor  Duruy,  History  of  Modern  Times, 
trans,  and  rev.  by  E.  A.  Grosvenor  (1S94),  ch.  xxi-xxiii.  More  detailed 
treatments:  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  \'  (1Q08),  ch.  i-iii,  vii-ix, 
xiii,  xiv,  Vol.  \'I  (1909),  ch.  iv-vi ;  Histoire  generate,  Vol.  VI,  ch.  iii-v, 
vii-ix,  xii-xvi,  xx,  Vol.  VII,  ch.  i-iii;  Histoire  de  France,  ed.  by  Ernest 
Lavisse,  Vols.  VII  and  Mil  (1906-1909) ;  History  of  All  Nations,  Vol. 
XIII,  The  Age  of  Louis  XIV,  by  Martin  Philippson. 

Domestic  Affairs  of  France.  Gecile  Ilugon,  Social  France  in  the  Seven- 
teenth Century  (191 1),  popular,  suggestive,  and  well-illustrated.  On  Col- 
bert :  A.  J.  Sargent,  Economic  Policy  of  Colbert  (1899) ;  S.  L.  Minis,  Colbert's 
West  India  Policy  (191 2);  Emile  Levasseur,  Histoire  des  classes  onvrieres 
et  de  Vindiistrie  en  France  avant  1789,  Vol.  II  (1901),  Book  VI;  Pierre 
Clement  (editor),  Lettres,  Instructions  ct  Memoir es  de  Colbert,  7  vols,  in  9 
(1861-1873).  H.  M.  Baird,  The  Huguenots  and  the  Revocation  of  the  Edict 
of  Nantes,  2  vols.  (1895),  a  detailed  study  by  a  warm  partisan  of  the  French 
Protestants.  Among  the  numerous  important  sources  for  the  reign  of 
Louis  XIV  should  be  mentioned  especially  F.  A.  Isambert  (editor),  Recueil 
general  des  anciennes  lois,  \'ols.  X\'III-XX,  containing  significant  statutes 
of  the  reign;  G.  B.  Dcpping  (editor),  Correspondance  administrative  sous 
Ic  regne  de  Louis  XIV,  4  vols.  (1850-1855),  for  the  system  of  government ; 
Arthur  de  Boislisle  (editor),  Corrcspondatice  des  contrdlcurs  generaux,  2  vols., 
for  the  fiscal  system.  Voltaire's  brilliant- ^^c  of  Louis  the  Fourteenth  has 
been  translated  into  English  ;  an  authoritative  history  of  French  literature 
in  the  Age  of  Louis  XIV  is  Louis  Petit  de  Julleville  (editor),  Histoire  de  la 
langue  et  de  la  litterature  franqaise,  \'ol.  V  (1898).  The  best  account  of  the 
minority  of  Louis  XV  is  that  of  J.  B.  Perkins,  France  under  the  Regency 
(1892) ;  a  brief  summary  is  Arthur  Hassall,  The  Balance  of  Power,  1715- 
1789  (1896),  ch.  i-iv. 

Foreign  Wars  of  Louis  XIV.  On  Louis  XIV's  relations  with  the  Dutch  : 
P.  J.  Blok,  History  of  the  People  of  the  Netherlands,  Part  IV,  Frederick 
Henry,  John  DeWitt,  William  III,  abridged  Eng.  trans,  by  O.  A.  Bier- 
stadt  (1907).  On  his  relations  with  the  empire:  Ruth  Putnam,  Alsace 
and  Lorraine  from  Ccesar  to  Kaiser,  58  B.C.~i87i  A.D.  (1914),  a  popular 
narrative ;  Franz  Krones,  Handbuch  der  Geschichte  Oesterreichs,  Vol.  Ill, 
Book  XVI,  Vol.  IV,  Book  XVII  (1878),  a  standard  German  work.  On 
his  relations  with  Spain :  M.  A.  S.  Hume,  Spain,  its  Greatness  and  Decay, 
1479-1788  (1898),  ch.  ix-xiii.  On  Louis  XIV's  relations  with  England: 
Osmund  Airy,  The  English  Restoration  and  Louis  XIV  (1895),  in  the 
"Epochs  of  Modern  History"  Series;  Sir  J.  R.  Seeley,  The  Growth  of 
British  Policy,  2  vols.  (1895),  especially  Vol.  II,  Parts  IV  and  V;  Earl 
Stanhope,  History  of  England,  Comprising  the  Reign  of  Queen  Anne  until 
the  Peace  of  Utrecht  (1870),  a  rather  dry  account  of  the  War  of  the  Spanish 
Succession ;  G.  J.  (Viscount)  Wolseley,  Life  of  John  Churchill,  Duke  of 
Marlborough,  to  the  Accession  of  Queen  Anne,  4th  ed.,  2  vols.  (1894),  an 


26o  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

apology  for  Marlborough;  J.  S.  Corbett,  England  in  the  Mediterranean, 
1603-1713,  Vol.  II  (1904),  for  English  naval  operations;  J.  W.  Gerard, 
The  Peace  of  Utrecht  (1885).  On  the  diplomacy  of  the  whole  period: 
D.  T.  Hill,  History  of  Diplomacy  in  the  International  Development  of  Europe, 
Vol.  Ill  (1914),  ch.  i-iv,  a  clear  outhne ;  Eniile  Bourgeois,  Manuel  his- 
torique  de  politique  etrangcre,  4th  ed..  Vol.  I  (1906),  ch.  iii,  iv,  vii,  ix,  xiv; 
Arsene  Legrelle,  La  diplomatie  franqaise  et  la  succession  d'Espagne,  i65g-i725, 
4  vols.  (1888-1892),  a  minute  study  of  an  important  phase  of  Louis  XIV's 
diplomacy ;  the  text  of  the  principal  diplomatic  documents  is  in  course  of 
publication  at  Paris  (20  vols.,  1884-1913)  as  the  Recueil  des  instructions 
donnees  aux  amhassadeurs  et  ministres  de  France  depuis  Ics  traites  de 
Westphalie  jusqu'a  la  revolution  franqaise. 

Memoirs  of  the  Age  of  Louis  XIV.  Among  the  multitudinous  memoirs 
of  the  period,  the  most  signiiacant,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  general  his- 
torian, are :  Marquise  de  Sevigne,  Lctlrcs,  delightful  epistles  relating 
mainly  to  the  years  1670-1696,  edited  in  fullest  form  for  "  Les  grands 
ecrivains  de  la  France  "  by  Monmerc[ue,  14  vols.  (1862-1868),  selections 
of  which  have  been  translated  into  English  by  C.  Syms  (1898) ;  Due  de 
Saint-Simon,  Memoir es,  the  most  celebrated  of  memoirs,  dealing  with 
many  events  of  the  years  1692-1723,  gossipy  and  racily  written  but  oc- 
casionally inaccurate  and  frequently  partisan,  edited  many  times  —  most 
recently  and  best  for  "  Les  grands  ecrivains  de  la  France  "  by  Arthur  de 
Boislisle,  30  vols.  (1879-1916),  of  which  a  much-abridged  translation  has 
been  published  in  English,  4  vols. ;  Marquis  de  Dangeau,  Journal,  19  vols. 
(1854-1882),  written  day  by  day,  throughout  the  years  1684-1720,  by  a 
conscientious  and  well-informed  member  of  the  royal  entourage ;  Life  and 
Letters  of  Charlotte  Elizabeth  (1889),  select  letters,  trans,  into  English,  of  a 
German  princess  who  married  Louis  XIV's  brother,  of  which  the  most 
complete  French  edition  is  that  of  Jaegle,  3  vols.  (1890).  See  also  Comtesse 
de  Puliga,  Madame  de  Sevigne,  her  Correspondents  and  Contemporaries,  2 
vols.  (1873),  and,  for  important  collections  of  miscellaneous  memoirs  of 
the  period,  J.  F.  Michaud  and  J.  J.  F.  Poujoulat,  Nouvelle  collection  des 
memoires  rclatifs  a  Vhistoire  de  France  depuis  le  13^  siecle  jusqu'd  la  fin  du 
18^  siecle,  34  vols.  (1854),  and  Louis  Lafaist  and  L.  F.  Danjou,  Archives 
curieuses  de  Vhistoire  de  France,  27  vols.  (1834-1840). 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    TRIUMPH    OF   PARLIAMENTARY    GOVERNMENT    IN 
ENGLAND 

CONFLICTING    POLITICAL    TENDENCIES    IN    ENGLAND: 
ABSOLUTISM   VERSUS  PARLIAMENTARIANISM 

Through  all  the  wars  of  dynastic  rivalry  which  have  been 
traced  in  the  two  preceding  chapters,  we  have  noticed  the  in- 
creasing prestige  of  the  powerful  French  monarchy,  culminating 
in  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV.  We  now  turn  to  a  nation  which 
played  but  a  minor  role  in  the  international  rivalries  of  the 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.  Later,  from  1689  to  1763, 
England  was  to  engage  in  a  tremendous  colonial  struggle  with 
France.  But  from  1560  to  1689  England  for  the  most  part 
held  herself  aloof  from  the  continental  rivalries  of  Bourbons 
and  Habsburgs,  and  never  fought  in  earnest  except  against 
Philip  II  of  Spain,  who  threatened  England's  economic  and 
pohtical  independence,  and  against  the  Dutch,  who  were  Eng- 
land's commercial  rivals.  While  the  continental  states  were 
engaged  in  dynastic  quarrels,  England  was  absorbed  in  a  con- 
flict between  rival  principles  of  domestic  government  —  between 
constitutional  parliamentary  government  and  unlimited  royal 
power.  To  the  triumph  of  the  parliamentary  principle  in 
England  we  owe  many  of  our  modern  ideas  and  practices  of 
constitutional  government. 

Absolutism  had  reached  its  high-water  mark  in  England 
long  before  the  power  and  prestige  of  the  French  monarchy 
had  culminated  in  the  person  of  Louis  XIV.     In  the    .,    ,    . 

.    ,  1  ,  •  1  •  1       1        Absolutism 

Sixteenth  century  —  the  very  century  m  which  the  of  the 

FrenclT'sovereigns  faced   constant  foreign  war   and  ^"i^°^^; 
chronic  civil  commotion  —  the^Tudor  rujjers.  of  Eng- 
land  were   gradually   freeing    themselves   from    reliance    upon. 
Parliament  and  were  commanding  the  united  support  of  the 

"     M— — -    -  261 


262  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 


English  nation. \|  From  the  accession  of  Henry  VII  in  1485  to 
the  death  of  his  grand-daughter  EHzabeth  in  1603,  the  practice 
of  absolutism,  though  not  the  theory  of  divine-right  monarchy, 
seemed  ever  to  be  gaining  ground./ 

How  Tudor  despotism  was  established  and  maintained  is  ex- 
plained in  part  by  reference  to  the  personality  of  Henry  VII 
and  to  the  circumstances  that  brought  him  to  the  throne.^  It 
is  also  explicable  by  reference  to  historical  developments  in 
England  throughout  the  sixteenth  century."/  As  Henry  VII 
humbled  the  nobility,  so  Henry  VIII  and  Elizabeth  subor- 
dinated the  Church  to  the  crown.  And  all  the  Tudors  asserted 
their  supremacy  in  the  sphere  of  industry  and  commerce.  By  a 
law  of  1503,  the  craft  gilds  had  been  obliged  to  obtain  the  ap- 
proval of  royal  officers  for  whatever  new  ordinances  the  gilds 
might  wish  to  make.  In  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Edward  VI 
the  gilds  were  crippled  by  the  loss  of  part  of  their  property,  which 
was  confiscated  under  the  pretext  of  religious  reform.  Eliza- 
beth's reign  was  notable  for  laws  regulating  apprenticeship, 
prescribing  the  terms  of  employment  of  laborers,  providing  that 
wages  should  be  fixed  by  justices  of  the  peace,  and  ordering 
vagabonds  to  be  set  to  work.  In  the  case  of  commerce,  the 
royal  power  was  exerted  encouragingly,  as  when  Henry  VII 
negotiated  the  Intercursus  Magnus  with  the  duke  of  Burgundy 
to  gain  admittance  for  EngHsh  goods  into  the  Netherlands, 
or  chartered  the  "Merchant  Adventurers"  to  carry  on  trade 
in  English  woolen  cloth,  or  sent  John  Cabot  to  seek  an  Atlantic 
route  to  Asia ;  or  as  when  Elizabeth  countenanced  and  abetted 
explorers  and  privateers  and  smugglers  and  slave-traders  in 
extending  her  country's  maritime  power  at  the  expense  of  Spain. 
All  this  meant  that  the  strong  hand  of  the  English  monarch 
had  been  laid  upon  commerce  and  industry  as  well  as  upon 
justice,  finance,  and  rehgion. 

'{The  power  of  the  Tudors  had  rested  largely  upon  their  popu- 
larity with  the  growing  influential  middle  class.  They  had 
subdued  sedition,  had  repelled  the  Armada,  had  fostered  pros- 

^  For  the  character  and  main  achievements  of  Henry  VII  (1485-1509),  see  above, 
pp.  4  ff. 

^  For  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII,  Edward  VI,  Mary,  and  Elizabeth,  see  above, 
pp.  86,  97  ff.,  150  ff. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLOxXIAL   RIVALRY  263 

perity,  and  had  been  willing  at  times  to  cater  to  the  whims 
of  their  subjects.  They  had  faithfully  personified  national 
patriotism ;  and  the  English  nation,  in  turn,  had  extolled  them.} 
(  Yet  despite  this  absolutist  tradition  of  more  than  a  century's 
duration,  England  was  destined  in  the  seventeenth  century  to 
witness  a  long  bitter  struggle  between  royal  and  parhamentary 
factions,  the  beheading  of  one  king  and  the  exiling  of  another, 
and  in  the  end  the  irrevocable  rejection  of  the  theory  and  prac- 
tice of  absolutist  divine-right  monarchy,  and  this  at  the  very 
time  when  Louis  XIV  was  holding  majestic  court  at  Versailles 
and  all  the  lesser  princes  on  the  Continent  were  zealously  pat- 
terning their  proud  words  and  boastful  deeds  after  the  model  of 
the  Grand  jNIonarch.  In  that  day  a  mere  parliament  was  to 
become  dominant  in  England.,' 

/  The  death  of  EHzabeth,  the  last  of  the  Tudors,  and  the  ac- 
cession  (1603)   of  her  cousin  James,   the  first  of  the  Stuarts, 
marked  the  real  beginning  of  the  struggle.     W^hen  he 
was  but  a  year  old,  this  James  had  acquired  through    oMhr^°° 
the  deposition  of  Kis  unfortunate  mother,  Mary  Stuart,   Stuarts : 
the  crown  of  Scotland  (1567),  and  had  been  proclaimed  1603^1625 
James  VI  in  that  disorderly  and  distracted  country. 
The  boy  who  was  whipped  by  his  tutor  and  kidnapped  by  his 
barons  and  browbeaten  by  Presbyterian  divines  learned  to  rule 
Scotland  with  a  rod  of  iron  and  incidentally  acquired  such  as- 
tonishing erudition,  especially  in  theology,  that  the  clever  King 
Henry  IV  of  France  called  him  "  the  wisest  fool  in  Christendom." 
At  the  age  of  thirty-seven,  this  Scotchman  succeeded  to  the  throne 
of  England  as  James  I.    "He  was  indeed,"  says  Macaulay,  "made 
up  of  two  men  —  a  witty,  well-read  scholar  who  wrote,  dis- 
puted, and  harangued,  and  a  nervous,  driveling  idiot  who  acted." 
James  was  not  content,  like  his  Tudor  predecessors,  merely  to 
be  an  absolute  ruler  in  practice;    he  insisted  also  upon    the 
theory  of  divine-right  monarchy.     Such  a  theory  was 
carefully  worked  out   by  the  pedantic   Stuart  king  Theorfor 
eighty  years  before  Bishop  Bossuet  wrote  his  classic  Absolutist 
treatise__on  divine-right  monarchy  for  the  guidance  Molmchy^^ 
of    the    young    son    of    Louis  XIV.       To  James  it 
seemed  quite  clear  that  God  had  di\dnely  ordained  kings  to 
rule,  for  had  not  Saul  been  anointed  by  Jehovah's  prophet,  had 


264  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

not  Peter  and  Paul  urged  Christians  to  obey  their  masters,  and 
had  not  Christ  Himseh  said,  "Render  unto  Caesar  that  which 
is  Csesar's"?  As  the  father  corrects  his  children,  so  should 
the  king  correct  his  subjects.  As  the  head  directs  the  hands 
and  feet,  so  must  the  king  control  the  members  of  the  body 
politic.  Royal  power  was  thus  the  most  natural  and  the  most 
effective  instrument  for  suppressing  anarchy  and  rebellion. 
\  James  I  summarized  his  idea  of  government  in  the  famous 
Latin  epigram,  "a  dco  rex,  -n  rcgc  lex,''  —  "the  king  is  from 
God,  and  law  from  the  king.") 

It  has  been  remarked  already  ^  that  in  one  important  respect 
the  past  governmental  evolution  of  England  differed  from  that 
Stuart  °^   France.     While  both  countries  in   the   sixteenth 

Theory  century    followed    absolutist    tendencies,    in    France 

Medievai^°  the  medieval  tradition  of  constitutional  Umitations 
English  upon  the  power  of  the  king  was  far  weaker  than  in 
Tradition  England,  with  the  result  that  in  the  seventeenth 
century  the  French  accepted  and  consecrated  absolutism  while 
the  English  gave  new  force  and  life  to  their  medieval  tradition 
and  practice  of  constitutional  government. 
/  The  tradition  of  English  restrictions  upon  royal  power  cen- 
tered in  the  old  document  of  Magna  Carta  and  in  an  ancient 
Restrictions  institution  called  Parliament.  Magna  Carta  dated 
on  Royal  back,  almost  four  centuries  before  King  James,  to 
England^-  ^^"^  y^^^  ^^^5  when  King  John  had  been  compelled 
Magna  by  liis  rebellious  barons  to  sign  a  long  list  of  promises  ; 

Carta  ^j^^^  ^i^^  ^^s  the  "long  charter"  or  Magna  Carta,^ 

and  it  was  important  in  three  respects,  (i)  It  served  as  a 
constant  reminder  that  "the  people"  of  England  had  once 
risen  in  arms  to  defend  their  "rights"  against  a  despotic  king, 
although  as  a  matter  of  fact  Magna  Carta  was  more  concerned 
with  the  rights  of  the  feudal  nobles  (the  barons)  and  of  the 
clergy  than  with  the  rights  of  the  common  people.  (2)  Its 
most  important  provisions,  by  which  the  king  could  not  levy 
extraordinary  taxes  on  the  nobles  without  the  consent  of  the 
Great  Council,  furnished  something  of  a  basis  for  the  idea  of 
self-taxation.  (3)  Clauses  such  as  "To  no  man  will  we  sell,  or 
deny,  or  delay,  right  or  justice,"  although  never  effectively  en- 

^  Sec  above,  pp.  4-7.  -  Magna  Carta  was  many  times  reissued  after  1215. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL    RUALRV  265 

forced,  established  the  idea  thai  justice  should  not  be  sold,  denied, 
or  delayed,      j 

Parliament' was  a  more  or  less  representative  assembly  of 
clergy,  nobility,  and  commoners,  claiming  to  have  powers  of 
taxation  and  legislation.  The  beginnings  of  Parlia-  p^^jj^^j^gj^^ 
ment  are  traced  back  centuries  before  James  I. 
There  had  l^een  an  advisory  body  of  prelates  and  lords  even 
before  the  Norman  conquest  (1066).  After  the  conquest  a 
somewhat  similar  assembly  of  the  king's  chief  feudal  vassals 

—  lay  and  ecclesiastical  —  had  been  called  the  Great  Council,  and 
its  right  to  resist  unjust  taxation  had  been  recognized  by  Magna 
Carta.  Henceforth  it  had  steadily  acquired  power.  The 
''Provisions  of  Oxford"  (1258)  had  provided,  in  addition,  for 
"twelve  honest  men"  to  represent  the  "commonalty"  and  to 
"treat  of  the  wants  of  the  king;  and  the  commonalty  shall 
hold  as  estabhshed  that  which  these  men  shall  do." 

For  the  beginnings  of  the  House  of  Commons  we  may  go 
back  to  the  thirteerith  century.  In  1254  the  king  summoned 
to  Parliament  not  only  the  bishops,  abbots,  earls,  and  barons, 
but  also  two  knights  from  every  shire.  Then,  in  an  irregular 
Parliament,  convened  in  1265  by  Simon  de  Montfort,  a  great 
baronial  leader  against  the  king,  two  burgesses  from  each  of 
twenty-one  towns  for  the  first  time  sat  with  the  others  and  helped 
to  decide  how  their  liberties  were  to  be  protected.  These 
knights  and  burgesses  were  the  elements  from  which  the  House 
of  Commons  was  subsequently  to  be  formed.  Similar  bodies 
met  repeatedly  in  the  next  thirty  years,  and  in  1295  Edward  I 
called  a  "model  Parliament"  of  archbishops,  bishops,  abbots, 
representative  clergy,  earls,  and  barons,  two  knights  from  every 
shire,  and  two  citizens  from  each  privileged  city  or  borough, 

—  more  than  four  hundred  in  all.     For  some  time  after  1295  the 
clergy,  nobility,   and   commoners  ^  may  have  deliberated  sep- 
arately much  as  did  the  three  "estates"  in  France.     At  any 
rate,  early  in  the  fourteenth  century  the  lesser  clergy 
dropped  out,   the  greater  prelates  and  nobles  were  Lords  and 
fused  into  one  body  —  the  House  of  "Lords  spiritual  House  of 
and  temporal,"  —  and  the  knights  joined  the  burgesses 

to  form  the  House  of  Commons.     Parliament  was  henceforth  a 

^  I.e.,  the  knights  of  the  shires  and  the  burgesses  from  the  towns. 


266  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

bicameral  body,  consisting  of  a  House  of  Commons  and  a  House 
of  Lords. 

The  primary  function  of  Parliament  was  to  give  information 
to  the  king  and  to  hear  and  grant  his  requests  for  new  ''sub- 
Powers  of  sidies"  or  direct  taxes.  The  right  to  refuse  grants 
Parliament:  was  gradually  assumed  and  legally  recognized.  As 
axation  ^^^q  taxes  on  the  middle  class  soon  exceeded  those  on 
the  clergy  and  nobility,  it  became  customary  in  the  fifteenth 
century  for  money  bills  to  be  introduced  in  the  Commons, 
approved  by  the  Lords,  and  signed  by  the  king. 

The  right  to  make  laws  had  always  been  a  royal  prerogative, 
in  theory  at  least.  Parliament,  however,  soon  utilized  its 
.  financial  control  in  order  to  obtain  initiative  in  legisla- 
tion. A  threat  of  withholding  subsidies  had  been  an 
effective  way  of  forcing  Henry  III  to  confirm  Magna  Carta  in 
1225  ;  it  proved  no  less  effective  in  securing  royal  enactment  of 
later  ''petitions"  for  laws.  In  the  fifteenth  century  legislation 
by  "petition"  was  supplanted  by  legislation  by  "bill,"  that  is, 
introducing  in  either  House  of  Parhament  measures  which,  in 
form  and  language,  were  complete  statutes  and  which  became 
such  by  the  united  assent  of  Commons,  Lords,  and  king.  To 
this  day  English  laws  have  continued  to  be  made  formally 
"by  the  King's  most  Excellent  Majesty,  by  and  with  the  ad- 
vice and  consent  of  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and 
Commons,  in  this  present  Parliament  assembled,  and  by   the 

C.thority  of  the  same." 
The  right  to  demand  an  account  of  expenditures,  to  cause 
e  removal  of  royal  officers,  to  request  the  king  to  abandon 
Influence  unpopular  policies,  or  otherwise  to  control  adminis- 
on  Adminis-  trative  affairs,  had  occasionally  been  asserted  by 
ra  ion  Parliament,  but  not  consistently  maintained. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  will  now  be  clear  that  the  fulcrum 
of   parliamentary  power  was   control   of  finance.     What    had 
Parliament     enabled  the  Tudors  to  incline  toward  absolutism  was 
under  the       the  fact  that  for  more  than  a  hundred  years  they  had 
"  °^^  made  themselves  fairly  independent  of  Parliament  in 

matters  of  finance  ;  and  this  they  had  done  by  means  of  economy, 
by  careful  collection  of  taxes,  by  irregular  expedients,  by  con- 
fiscation of  religious  property,  and  by  tampering  with  the  cur- 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  267 

rency.     Parliament    still    met,    however,    but    irregularly,    and 
during  Elizabeth's  reign  it  was  in  session  on  the  average  only 
three  or  four  weeks  of  the  year.     Parliament  still  transacted 
business,  bur  rarely  differed  with  the  monarch  on  matters  of 
importance^ 
/     At  the  end  of  the  Tudor  period,  then,  we  have  an  ancient 
\  tradition  of  constitutional,  parliamentary  government  on    the 
one  hand,  and  a  strong,  practical,  royal  power  on  the  james  i 
other.     The  conflict  between   Parliament  and  king,  and  Par- 
which  had  been  avoided  by  the  tactful  Tudors,  soon     ^^^^^ 
began  in  earnest  when  James  I  ascended  the  throne  in  1603, 
with  his  exaggerated  notion  of  his  own  authority.     James  I 
w^as  an  extravagant  monarch,  and  needed  parHamentary  sub- 
sidies,  yet   his   own   pedantic   principles   prevented   him   from 
humoring  Parliament  in  any  dream  of  power.     The  inevitable 
result  was  a  conflict  for  political  supremacy  between  Parliament 
and  king.     When  Parliament  refused  him  money,  James  re- 
sorted to  the  imposition  of  customs  duties,  grants  of  monopolies, 
saleToFpeerages,  and  the  soHcitation  of  "benevolences"  (forced 
loans).     Parliament  promptly  protested  against  such  practices, 
as  well  as  against  his  foreign  and  religious  policies  and  against 
his  absolute  control  of  the  appointment  and  operation   of  the 
judiciary.     Parliament's  protests  only  increased  the  wrath  of 
the  king.     The  noisiest  parliamentarians  were  imprisoned  or 
sent  home  with  royal  scoldings.     In  162 1  the  Commoners  entered 
in  their  journal  a  "Great  Protestation"  against  the  king's  inter- 
ference with  their  free  right  to  discuss  the  affairs  of  the  realm. 
This  so  angered  the  king  that  he  tore  the  Protestation  out  of 
the  journal  and  presently  dissolved  the  intractable  Parliament ; 
but  the  quarrel  continued,  and  James's  l^st  Parliament  had 
the  audacity  to  impeach  his  lord  treasurer^^ 
The  political  dispute  was  made  more  bitter  by  the  co-existence 
f  a  religious  conflict.     James,  educated  as  a  devout  Anglican, 
was  naturally  inclined  to  continue  to  uphold  the  com-  political 
promise  by  which  the  Tudors  had  severed  the  English  Dispute 
Church  from  the  Roman  Catholic  hierarchy,  3'et  had  crtTdby 
retained  many  forms  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  Religious 
episcopal  organization  by  means  of  which  the  sovereign     '  erence 
was   able    to   control    the  Church.     During  Elizabeth's   reign, 


268  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

however,  a  large  part  of  the  middle  class  —  the  townsmen 
Caivinists  especially  —  and  many  of  the  lower  clergy  had  come 
in  England  under  the  influence  of  Calvinistic  teaching.^  The 
movement  was  marked  (i)  by  a  virulent  hatred  for  even  the 
most  trivial  forms  reminiscent  of  "popery,"  as  the  Roman 
The  Catholic  religion  was  called;    and  (2)  by.  a  tendency 

"Puritans"  ^q  place  emphasis  upon  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  well  as  upon  the  precepts  of  the  New.  Along  with  austerity 
of  manner,  speech,  dress,  and  fast-day  observance,  they  revived 
much  of  the  mercilessness  with  which  the  Israelites  had  con- 
quered Canaan.  The  same  men  who  held  it  a  deadly  sin  to 
dance  round  a  may-pole  or  to  hang  out  holly  on  Christmas 
were  later  to  experience  a  fierce  and  exalted  pleasure  in  conquer- 
ing New  England  from  the  heathen  Indians.  They  knew 
neither  self-indulgence  nor  compassion.  Little  wonder  that 
Elizabeth  feared  men  of  such  mold  and  used  the  episcopal  ad- 
ministration of  the  Anglican  Church  to  restrain  them.  Many 
of  these  so-called  Puritans  remained  members  of  the  Anghcan 
Church  and  sought  to  reform  it  from  within.  But  restraint 
only  caused  the  more  radical  to  condemn  altogether  the  fabric 
of  bishops  and  archbishops,  and  to  advocate  a  presbyterian 
church.  Others  went  still  further  and  wished  to  separate  from 
the  Established  Anglican  Church  into  independent  rehgious 
groups,  and  were  therefore  called  Independents  or  Separatists. 

These  rehgious  radicals,  often  grouped  together  as  "Puritans," 
were  continually  working  against  Elizabeth's  strict  enforce- 
ment of  Anglican  orthodoxy.  The  accession  of  James  was 
Hostility  of  seized  by  them  as  an  occasion  for  the  presentation  of  a 
James  I  to  great  petition  for  a  modification  of  church  govern- 
t  e  untans  j^gj^^  ^^.^^  ritual.  The  petition  bore  no  fruit,  however, 
and  in  a  rehgious  debate  at  Hampton  Court  in  1604  James 
made  a  brusque  declaration  that  bishops  like  kings  were  set 
over  the  multitude  by  the  hand  of  God,  and,  as  for  these  Puritans 
who  would  do  away  with  bishops,  he  would  make  them  con- 
form or  "harry  them  out  of  the  land."  From  this  time  forth 
he  insisted  on  conformity,  and  deprived  many  clergymen  of 
their  offices  for  refusing  to  subscribe  to  the  regulations  framed 
in  1604. 

^  On  the  ductrines  of  Calvinism,  sec  above,  pp.  139  ff.,  156,  164  S. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  269 

The  hard  rule  of  this  iiiouareh  wlio  claimed  to  govern  by  the 
will  of  God  was  rendered  even  more  abhorrent  to  the  stern 
Puritan  moralists  by  reports  of  "drunken  orgies"  and      ^^^  ^ 
horrible  vices  which  made  the  royal  court  appear  to  be  of  the 
a  veritable  den  of  Satan.     But  worst  of  all  was  his  fu^tans 

,,      r   ^       T\      '  ^^^  James  I 

suspected  leanmg  towards  popery.  The  Puritans 
had  a  passionate  hatred  for  anything  that  even  remotely  sug- 
gested Roman  Catholicism.  Consequently  it  was  not  with 
extreme  pleasure  that  they  welcomed  a  king  whose  mother  had 
been  a  Catholic,  whose  wife  was  suspected  of  harboring  a  priest, 
a  ruler  who  at  times  openly  exerted  himself  to  obtain  greater 
toleration  for  Roman  Catholics  and  to  maintain  the  Anglican 
ritual  against  Puritan  modification.  With  growing  alarm  and 
resentment  they  learned  that  Catholic  conspirators  had  plotted 
to  blow  up  the  houses  of  Parliament,  and  that  in  his  foreign 
policy  James  was  decidedly  friendly  to  Catholic  princesy 

The  cardinal  points  of  James's  foreign  policy,  —  union  with 
Scotland,  peace,  and  a  Spanish  alliance,  —  were  all  calculated 
to  arouse  antagonism.  The  EngHsh,  having  for  centuries 
nourished  enmity  for  their  northern  neighbors  and  perceiving 
no  apparent  advantage  in  close  union,  defeated  the  project  of 
amalgamating  the  two  kingdoms  of  England  and  Scotland, 
James's  policy  of  non-intervention  in  the  Thirty  Years'  War 
evoked  bitter  criticism ;  he  was  accused  of  favoring  the  Catholics 
and  of  deserting  his  son-in-law,  the  Protestant  elector  of  the 
Palatinate.  The  most  hotly  contested  point  was,  however, 
the  Spanish  policy.  Time  and  time  again,  Parliament  protested, 
but  James  pursued  his  plans,  making  peace  with  Spain,  and 
negotiating  for  a  marriage  between  his  son  Charles  and  the 
Infanta  of  Spain,  and  Prince  Charles  actually  went  to  Spain 
to  court  the  daughter  of  Philip  III. 

It  was  essentially  the  Puritan  middle  classes  who  were  an- 
tagonized by  the  king.     The  strength  of  the  Puritans  , 

1   •        1  •  1  11        1  r  1  1    Intercon- 

rested  m  the  middle  class  of  merchants,  seamen,  and  nection  of 
squires.      It  was  this  class  which  had  profited  by  the  Puntamsm, 

..  ,  ^  ■;  Commer- 

war  With  Spain  m  the  days  of     good  Queen  Bess      daiism,  and 
when  many  a  Spanish  prize,  laden  with  silver  and  Parhamen- 
dye  woods,  had  been  towed  into  Plymouth  harbor. 
Their  dreams  of  erecting  an  English  colonial  and  commercial  em- 


270  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

pire  on  the  ruins  of  Spain's  were  rudely  shattered  by  James.  It 
was  to  this  Puritan  middle  class  that  papist  and  Spaniard  were 
bywords  for  assassin  and  enemy.  By  his  Spanish  policy,  as  well 
as  by  his  irregular  methods  of  taxation,  James  had  touched 
the  Puritans  in  their  pocketbooks.  The  Puritans,  too,  were 
grieved  to  see  so  sinful  a  man  sit  on  the  throne  of  England,  and 
so  wasteful  a  man  squander  their  money.  They  were  even 
hindered  in  the  exercise  of  their  religious  convictions.  Every 
fiber  in  them  rebelled. 

Puritans  throughout  the  country  looked  to  the  large  Puritan 
majority  in  the  House  of  Commons  to  redress  their  grievances. 
The  parhamentary  struggle  became  then  not  only  a  defense  of 
abstract  ideals  of  democracy  but  also  a  bitter  battle  in  defense 
of  class  interests.  Parliamentary  traditions  were  weapons 
against  an  oppressive  monarch ;  religious  scruples  gave  divine 
sanction  to  an  attack  on  royalist  bishops ;  consciousness  of 
being  God's  elect  gave  confidence  in  assailing  the  aristocracy  of 
land  and  birth.  For  the  present,  the  class  interests  of  the 
Puritans  were  to  be  defended  best  by  the  constitutional  Kmita- 
tion  of  royal  power,  and  in  their  struggle  with  James's  son  and 
successor,  Charles  I  (1625-1649),  they  represent  by  chance  the 
forces  of  democracy. 

For  a  time  it  appeared  as  if  the  second  Stuart  king  would  be 
very  popular.  Unlike  his  father,  Charles  seemed  thoroughly 
Charles  I,  English ;  and  his  athletic  frame,  his  dignified  manners, 
1625-1649  anj  hig  purity  of  life  contrasted  most  favorably  with 
James's  deformities  in  character  and  physique.  Two  years 
before  his  father's  death  Charles  had  been  jilted  by  his  Spanish 
fiancee  and  had  returned  to  England  amid  wild  rejoicing  to  aid 
Parliament  in  demanding  war  with  Spain.  He  had  again  re- 
joiced the  bulk  of  the  English  nation  by  solemnly  assuring 
Parliament  on  the  occasion  of  his  marriage  contract  with  Hen- 
rietta Maria,  sister  of  Louis  XIII  of  France,  that  he  would 
grant  no  concessions  to  Roman  Catholics  in  England.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  Charles  simultaneously  but  secretly  assured  the 
French  government  not  only  that  he  would  allow  the  queen 
the  free  exercise  of  her  rehgion  but  that  he  would  make  general 
concessions  to  Roman  Catholics  in  England.  This  duplicity 
on  the  part  of  the  young  king,  which  augured  ill  for  the  har- 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  271 

mony  of  future  relations  between  himself  and  Parliament,  throws 
a  flood  of  light  upon  his  character  and  policies.  Though  Charles 
was  sincerely  religious  and  well-intentioned,  he  was 

-  °  A  True 

as  devoted  to  the  theory  of  divine-right  monarchy  as .  stuart  in 
his  father  liad  been:    and  as   to   the  means  which  ?^''°*'°"  *° 

II'  Absolutism 

he  might  employ  in  order  to  estabhsh  absolutism 
upon  a  firm  foundation  he  honestly  beheved  himself  responsible 
oiil\-  lo  God  and  to  his  own  conscience,  certainly  not  to  Parha- 
ment.  This  fact,  together  with  a  certain  inherent  aptitude  for 
shirking  the  settlement  of  difficulties,  explains  in  large  part  the 
faults  wliich  historians  have  usually  ascribed  to  him  —  his 
meanness  and  ingratitude  toward  his  most  devoted  followers, 
his  chronic  obstinacy  which  only  feigned  compliance,  and  his 
incurable  untruthfulness. 

Just  before  Charles  came  to  the  throne,  ParHament  granted 
subsidies  in  expectation  of  a  war  against  Spain,  but,  when  he 
had  used  up  the  war-money  without  showing  any  serious  in- 
clination to  open  hostihties  with  Spain,  and  had  then  demanded 
additional  grants,  ParHament  gave  evidence  of  its  growing  dis- 
trust by  limiting  a  levy  of  customs  duties  to  one  year,  instead 
of  granting  them  as  usual  for  the  whole  reign.  In  view  of  the 
increasingly  obstinate  temper  manifested  by  the  House  of 
Commons  in  withholding  subsidies  and  in  assaihng  his  worthless 
favorite,  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  Charles  angrily  dissolved  his 
first  ParHament. 

The  difficulties  of  the  administration  were  augmented  not  only 
by  this  arbitrary  treatment  of  Parliament  but  also  by  the  miser- 
able failure  of  an  English  fleet  sent  against  Cadiz, 
and  by  the  humiliating  result  of  an  attempt  to  relieve  conflict 
the  French  Huguenots.^     Meanwhile,  a  second  Parlia-  between 
ment,  more  intractable  even  than  its  predecessor,  had  p^fjament 
been  dissolved  for  its  insistence  on  the  impeachment  of 
Buckingham.     Attempts  to  raise  money  by  forced  loans  in  place 
of  taxes  failed  to  remove  the  financial  distress  into  which  Charles 
had  fallen,  and  consequently,  in   1628,  he  consented  ^j^^ 
to  summon  a  third  ParHament.     In  return  for  grants  Petition  of 
of  subsidies,  he  signed  the_Peiition  of  Right  (1628),     '^   >  ^  ^ 
prepared  by  the  two  houses.     By  it  he  "promised  not  to  levy 

^  See  above,  p.  214. 


272  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

taxes  without  consent  of  Parliament,  iiot  to  quarter  soldiers  in 
private  houses,  not  to  estabhsh  martial  law  in  time  of  peace, 
not  to  order  arbitrary  imprisonment. 

Even  these  concessions  were  not  enough.  Parliament  again 
demanded  the  removal  of  Buckingham,  and  only  the  assassina- 
tion of  the  unpopular  minister  obviated  prolonged  dispute  on 
that  matter.  The  Commoners  next  attempted  to  check  the 
unauthorized  collection  of  customs  duties,  which  produced  as 
much  as  one-fourth  of  the  total  royal  revenue,  and  to  prevent 
the  introduction  of  "  popish  "  innovations  in  religion,  but  for 
this  trouble  they  were  sent  home. 

■'Charles  was  now  so  thoroughly  disgusted  with  the  members  of 

Parliament  that  he  determined  to  rule  without  them,  and  for 

,  „   eleven  years  (1620-1640)  he  successfully  carried  on  a 

"  Personal"    ,.  -^   ,,,,..  .  ,. 

Rule  of  personal       as   distinct   from   a  parliamentary   gov- 

Chariesi,  ernment,  in  spite  of  financial  and  rehgious  diffi- 
1629-1040 

culties. 

Without  the  consent  of  Parliament,  Charles  was  bound  not 
to  levy  direct  taxes.  During  the  period  of  his  personal  rule, 
therefore,  he  was  compelled  to  adopt  all  sorts  of  expedients  to 
replenish  his  treasury.  He  revived  old  feudal  laws  and  col- 
lected fines  for  their  infraction.  A  sum  of  one  hundred  thousand 
pounds  was  gained  by  lines  on  suburban  householders  who  had 
disobeyed  a  proclamation  of  James  I  forbidding  the  extension 
of  London.  The  courts  levied  enormous  fines  merely  for  the 
sake  of  revenue.  Monopolies  of  wine,  salt,  soap,  and  other 
articles  were  sold  to  companies  for  large  sums  of  money ;  but 
the  high  prices  charged  by  the  companies  caused  much  popular 
discontent. 

The  most  obnoxious  of  all  devices  for  raising  money  were  the 
levies  of  "ship-money."  Claiming  that  it  had  always  been  the 
"  Ship-  duty  of  seaboard  towns  to  equip  ships  for  the  defense 

money  "  Qf  ^-j-^g  country,  Charles  demanded  that  since  they  no 
longer  built  ships,  the  towns  should  contribute  money  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  navy.  In  1634,  therefore,  each  town  was 
ordered  to  pay  a  specified  amount  of  "ship-money"  into  the 
royal  treasury,  and  the  next  year  the  tax  was  extended  to  in- 
land towns  and  counties.^     To  test  the  legality  of  this  exaction, 

^  The  first  writ  of  ship-money  yielded  £100,000  (Cunningham). 


■oimAi  t  CO.,  [Haii/>.  Njr. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  273 

a  certain  John  Hampden  refused  to  pay  his  twenty  shillings 
ship-money,  and  took  the  matter  to  court,  claiming  that 
ship-money  was  illegal  taxation.  The  majority  of  the  judges, 
who  held  office  during  the  king's  pleasure  and  were  therefore 
strictly  under  royal  influence,  upheld  the  legality  of  ship-money 
and  even  went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  in  times  of  emergency  the 
king's  prerogative  was  unlimited,  but  the  country  rang  with 
protests  and  Hampden  was  hailed  as  a  hero. 

Opposition  to  financial  exactions  went  hand  in  hand  with 
bitter  religious  disputes.  Charles  had  intrusted  the  control  of 
religious  affairs  to  William  Laud,  whom  he  named  ^ 

Devotion  of 

archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  showed  favor  to  other  Charles  i 
clergN'men  of  marked  Catholic  leanings.     The  laws  '°  *^5 

A.ri£lic8.ii 

against  Roman  Catholics  were  relaxed,  and  the  restric-  church : 
tions  on  Puritans  increased.     It  seemed  as  if  Charles  Archbishop 

.  Laud 

and  his  bishops  were  bent  wpon  goading  the  Puritans 
to  fury,  at  the  very  time  when  one  by  one  the  practices,  the 
vestments,  and  even  the  dogmas  of  the  Catholic  Church  were 
being  reintroduced  into  the  Anglican  Church,  when  the  tyran- 
nical King  James  was  declared  to  have  been  divinely  Puritan 
inspired,  and  when  Puritan  divines  were  forced  to  read  Opposition 
from  their  pulpits  a  royal  declaration  permitting  the  ''sinful" 
practices  of  dancing  on  the  green  or  shooting  at  the  butts  (tar- 
gets) on  the  Sabbath.^     So  hard  was  the  lot  of  the  extreme 
Protestants  in  England  that  thousands  fled  the  country  and 
established  themselves  in  America.-  ^,    o    .  ^ 

The  Scotch 

In  his  Scotch  policy  Charles  overreached  himself.   Covenant, 
With  the  zealous  cooperation  of  Archbishop  Laud,  he  ^?^  Begm- 

,        ,  ^  .  ,  ,       ^     .  mngs  of 

imprudently  attempted  to  strengthen  the  episcopacy  Armed 
(system  of  bishops)   in  the  northern  kingdom,   and  5*^5°^^^° 
likewise  to  introduce  an  un-Calvinistic  order  of  public 
worship.     Thereupon  the  angry  Scotch  Presbyterians  signed  a 
great  Covenant,  swearing  to  defend  their  religion  (1638) ;   they 

^  It  is  an  interesting  if  not  a  significant  fact  that  the  Puritans  with  their 
austere  views  about  observance  of  the  Sabbath  not  only  decreased  the  number  of 
holidays  for  workingmen,  but  interfered  with  innocent  recreation  on  the  remain- 
ing day  of  rest.  One  aspect  of  the  resulting  monotonous  life  of  the  laborer  was, 
according  to  Cunningham,  the  remarkable  increase  of  drunkenness  at  this  period. 

^  In  the  decade  1630-1640  some  20,000  Englishmen  sailed  for  the  colonies. 
Many  of  these,  however,  emigrated  by  reason  of  strictly  economic  distress. 


274  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

deposed  the  bishops  set  over  them  by  the  king  and  rose  in  re- 
volt. Faihng  in  a  first  effort  to  crush  the  Scotch  rebelHon,  the 
king  summoned  a  ParHament  in  order  to  secure 
tion^oTuie  financial  support  for  an  adequate  royal  army.  This 
Long  Parliament  —  the  so-called  Short  Parliament  —  was 

1640^™^° '  dissolved,  however,  after  some  three  weeks  of  boot- 
less wrangling.  Now  unable  to  check  the  advance 
of  the  rebeUious  Scotch  forces  into  northern  England,  Charles 
in  desperation  convoked  (1640)  a  new  Parliament,  which,  by 
reason  of  its  extended  duration  (i  640-1 660),  has  been  com- 
monly called  the  Long  ParHament.  In  England  and  Scotland 
divine-right  monarchy  had  failed. 

THE  PURITAN  REVOLUTION 

Confident  that  Charles  could  neither  fight  nor  buy  off  the 
Scotch  without  parliamentary  subsidies,  the  Long  Parliament 
Reforms  showed  a  decidedly  stubborn  spirit.  Its  leader, 
of  the  Long  John  Pym,  a  country  gentleman  already  famous  for 
ar  amen  j^-^  gpecches  against  despotism,  openly  maintained 
that  in  the  House  of  Commons  resided  supreme  authority  to 
disregard  ill-advised  acts  of  the  Upper  House  or  of  the  king. 
Hardly  less  radical  were  the  views  of  John  Hampden  and  of 
Oliver  Cromwell,  the  future  dictator  of  England. 

The  right  of  the  Commons  to  impeach  ministers  of  state, 
asserted  under  James  I,  was  now  used  to  send  to  the  Tower 
both  Archbishop  Laud  and  Thomas  Wentworth,  earl  of  Strafford, 
who,  since  1629,  had  been  the  king's  most  valued  and  enthu- 
siastically loyal  minister.^  The  special  tribunals  —  the  Court 
of  High  Commission,  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber,  and  others  — 
which  had  served  to  convict  important  ecclesiastical  and  political 
offenders  were  abolished.  No  more  irregular  financial  ex- 
pedients, such  as  the  imposition  of  ship-money,  were  to  be 
adopted,  except  by  the  consent  of  Parliament.  As  if  this  were 
not  enough  to  put  the  king  under  the  thumb  of  his  Parliament, 
the  royal  prerogative  of  dissolving  that  body  was  abrogated, 

^  Strafford  was  accused  of  treason,  but  was  executed  in  1641  in  accordance  with 
a  special  "bill  of  attainder"  enacted  by  Parliament.  Laud  was  put  to  death  in 
1645- 


D\^ASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIV.\LRY  275 

and^ meetings  at  least  every  three  years  were  provided  for  by  a 

the  contested  points  of  government  had  been  decided 
adversely  to  the  king.     But  his  position  was  now  somewhat 
stronger.     He   had   been   able   to   raise   money,    the 
Scotch  invaders  had  turned  back,  and  the  House  of  ^i°;[^^°" 

.    .  of  Parlia- 

Commons  had  shown  itself  to  be  badly  divided  on  the  mentary 
question  of  church  reform  and  in  its  debates  on  the  P"viieges: 

Attempted 

publication  of  a    Grand  Remonstrance   — a  document  Seizure  by 
exposing  the  grievances  of  the  nation  and  apologizing  S^^^p^  °* 
for  the   acts  of  Parliament.      Moreover,   a  rebellion  Members 
had   broken   out    in  Ireland   and    Charles    expected 
to  be  put  at  the  head  of  an  army  for  its  suppression.     With 
this    much    in    his    favor,    the    king    in   person    entered    the 
House  of  Commons  and  attempted  to  arrest  five  of  its  leaders, 
but  his  dismal  failure  only  further  antagonized  the  Commons, 
who  now  proceeded  to  pass  ordinances  without  the  ^j^^  q^^^^^ 
royal  seal,  and  to  issue  a  call  to  arms.     The  levy  of  Rebellion, 
troops  contrary  to  the  king's  will  was  an  act  of  re-   ^  '*^~^  ^ 
bellion  ;  Charles,  therefore,  raised  the  royal  standard  at  Notting- 
ham and  called  his  loyal  subjects  to  suppress  the  Great  Re- 
bellion (1642-1646).! 

To  the  king's  standard  rallied  the  bulk  of  the  nobles,  high 
churchmen,  and  Roman  Catholics,  the  country  "squires,"  and 
all  those  who  disliked  the  austere  moral  code  of  the  _    „    . 

,   .  .  The  Parties 

Puritans.     In  opposition  to  him  a  few  great  earls  to  the 

led    the    middle    classes  —  small    land-holders,    mer-  p^^  ^^^  •  „ 

chants,    manufacturers,    shop-keepers,    especially    in  and 

London  and  other  busy  towns  throughout  the  south  "^°""!^" 

and  east  of  England.     The  close-cropped  heads  of 

these     "God-fearing"     tradesmen    won    them     the    nickname 

"Roundheads,"  w^hile  the  royalist  upper  classes,  not  thinking 

it  a  sinful  vanity  to  wear  their  hair  in  long  curls,  were  called 

"Cavahers." 

In  the  Long  Parliament  there  was  a  predominance  of  the 
Presbyterians  —  that  class  of  Puritans  midway  between  the 
reforming  Episcopalians  and  the  radical  Independents.  Accord- 
ingly a  "solemn  league  and  covenant"  was  formed  (1643)  with 
the  Scotch  Presbyterians  for  the  establishment  of  religious  uni- 


276  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

formity  on  a  Presbyterian  basis  in  England  and  Ireland  as  well 
as  in  Scotland.     After  the  defeat  of  Charles  at  Marston  Moor 

(1644)  the  Presbyterians  abolished  the  ofi&ce  of  bishop, 
and  the  removed  altars  and  communion  rails  from  the  churches, 
Presby-         ^^(\    smashed    crucifixes,    images,    and    stained-glass 

windows.  Presbyterianism  became  a  more  intolerant 
state  religion  than  Anglicanism  had  been.  Satisfied  with  their 
work,  the  Presbyterian  majority  in  Parliament  were  now  willing 
to  restore  the  king,  pro^dded  he  would  give  permanence  to  their 
religious  settlement. 

The   Puritan   army,   however,   was  growing  restive.     Oliver 
Cromwell,  an  Independent,  had  organized  a  cavalry  regiment 

of  "honest  sober  Christians"  who  were  fined  12  pence 
andthe"^  if  they  swore,  who  charged  in  battle  while  "singing 
independ-  psalms,"  and  who  went  about  the  business  of  kilHng 
c^omweir^"^  their  enemies  in  a  pious  and  prayerful,  but  withal  a 

highly  effective,  manner.  Indeed,  so  successful  were 
Cromwell's  "Ironsides"  that  a  considerable  part  of  the  Parlia- 
mentary army  was  reorganized  on  his  plan.  The  "New  Model" 
army,  as  it  was  termed,  was  Independent  in  sympathy,  that  is 
to  say,  it  wished  to  carry  on  the  war,  and  to  overthrow  the 
tyranny  of  the  Presbyterians  as  well  as  that  of  the  Anglicans. 

The  "New  Model"  army,  under  the  command  of  Fairfax  and 
Cromwell,  defeated  Charles  and  forced  him  to  surrender  in  1646. 

For  almost  two  years  the  Presbyterian  Parliament  ne- 

Cromwell  s  •         i    r  t  •  p     i       1  • 

Army  gotiatcd  for  the  restoration  of  the  kmg  and  at  last 

Defeats  would  have  made  peace  with  the  royalists,  had  not 
and  Domi-  the  army,  which  still  remembered  Charles's  schemes 
nates  Par-  |-q  bring  Irish  and  foreign  "papists"  to  fight  English- 
men, now  taken  a  hand  in  affairs.  Colonel  Pride, 
stationed  with  his  soldiers  at  the  door  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
arrested  the  143  Presbyterian  Commoners,  and  left  the  In- 
dependents —  some  sixty  strong  —  to  dehberate  alone  upon  the 
jjjg  nation's  weal  (1648).     This  "Rump"  or  sitting  part  of 

"  Rump  Parliament,  acting  on  its  own  authority,  appointed  a 
ar  lament  ''f^jgh  Court  of  Justicc"  by  whose  sentence  Charles  I 
was  beheaded,  30  January,  1649.  It  then  decreed  England 
to  be  a  Commonwealth  with  neither  king  nor  House  of 
Lords.X 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  277 

(rhe   executive    functions,    hitherto    exercised    by    the    king, 
were  intrusted  to  a  Council  of  State,  of  whose  forty-one  members 
thirty  were  members  of  the  Mouse.     The  Rump  Parlia-  ^^^  q^^_ 
ment,  instead  of  calling  for  new  elections,  as  had  been   monweaith, 
expected,  continued  to  sit  as  the  "representatives  of   ^  '^^^ 
the  people,"  although  they  represented  the  sentiments  of  only  a 
small  fraction  of  the  people.     England  was  in  the  hands  of  an 
oligarchy  whose  sole  support  was  the  vigorous  army  of  Cromwell. ) 

Menacing  conditions  confronted  the  newly  born  Common- 
wealth. War  with  Scotland  and  with  Holland  was  imminent; 
/mutiny  and  unrest  showed  that  the  execution  of  Charles  had 
infused  new  life  into  the  royalists;  CathoHc-royaHst  rebels 
mastered  all  of  Ireland  except  DubHn.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, the  Commonwealth  would  have  perished  but  for  three 
sources  of  strength  :  (1)  Its  financial  resources  proved  adequate  : 
customs  duties  were  collected,  excise  taxes  on  drinks  and  food 
were  lexied,  and  confiscat^l  royahst  estates  were  sold ;  (2)  its 
enemies  had  no  well-drillm  armies ;  and  (3)  its  own  army 
v/as  remarkably  powerful. 

Cromwell,  victor  in  a  series  of  bloody  engagements  in  Ireland, 
after  butchering  thousands  of  the  defeated  royahsts  and  shipping 
others  as  slaves  to  Barbados,  was  able  to  return  to   ^ 

Cromwell 
London  m  1650,  declaring,  "I  am  persuaded  that  this  and  the 

is  a  righteous  judgment  of  God  upon  these  barbarous  Restoration 
wretches  [the  Irish]  who  have  imbrued  their  hands 
in  so  much  innocent  blood,  and  that  ij:  will  tend  to  prevent  the 
efi'usion  of  blood  for  the  future."  ^The  next  movement  of 
Cromwell,  as  Parliamentary  commander-in-chief,  was  against 
the  Scotch,  who  had  declared  for  Charles  II,  the  son  of  Charles  I. 
The  Scotch  armies,  were  annihilated,  and  Prince  Charles  fled  in 
disguise  to  France.  \ 

Meanwhile  the  members  of  the  Rump,  still  the  nominal  rulers  of 
England,  finding  opportunity  for  profit  in  the  sale  of  royalist  lands 
and  in  the  administration  of  finance,  had  exasperated  Navigation 
Cromwell  by  their  maladministration  and  neglect  of  the  ^'^*'  ^^^i 
public  welfare.  The  life  of  the  Rump  was  temporarily  prolonged, 
however,  by  the  popularity  of  its  legislation  against  the  Dutch, 
at  this  time  the  rivals  of  England  on  the  seas  and  in  the  col- 
onies.    In  165 1  the  Rump  passed  the  first  Na\dgation  Act,  for- 


278  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

bidding  the  importation  of  goods  from  Asia,  Africa,  or  America, 
except  in  English  or  colonial  ships,  and  providing  that  commod- 
ities of  European  production  should  be  imported  only  in  vessels 
of  England  or  of  the  producing  country.  The  framers  of  the 
Navigation  Act  intended  thereby  to  exclude  Dutch  vessels  from 
trading  between  England  and  other  lands.  The  next  year  a 
commercial  and  naval  war  (165  2-1 654)  broke  out  between  England 
and  Holland,  leading  to  no  decisive  result,  but,  on  the  whole, 
increasing  the  prestige  of  the  English  navy.  With  renewed 
confidence  the  Rump  contemplated  perpetuating  its  narrow 
oligarchy,  but  Cromwell's  patience  was  exhausted,  and  in  1653 
he  turned  Parliament  out  of  doors,  declaring,  "Your  hour  is 
come,  the  Lord  hath  done  with  you!"  Cromwell  remained  as 
military  and  religious  dictator. 

Oliver  Cromwell  (i  599-1 658)  is  the  most  interesting  figure  in 
seventeenth-century  England.  Belonging  by  birth  to  the  class 
Oliver  of  country  gentlemen,  his  first  appearance  in  public 

Cromwell  jjfg  ^q^^  [^  ^}^g  Parliament  of  1628  as  a  pleader  for  the 
liberty  of  Puritan  preaching.  When  the  Long  Parliament  met 
in  1640,  Cromwell,  now  forty-one  years  of  age,  assumed  a  con- 
spicuous place.  His  clothes  were  cheap  and  homely,  "his 
countenance  swollen  and  reddish,  his  voice  sharp  and  untune- 
able,"  nevertheless  his  fervid  eloquence  and  energy  soon  made 
him  "very  much  hearkened  unto."  From  the  Civil  War,  as 
we  know,  Cromwell  emerged  as  an  unequaled  military  leader, 
the  idol  of  his  soldiers,  fearing  God  but  not  man.  His  frequent 
use  of  Biblical  phrases  in  ordinary  conversation  and  his  manifest 
confidence  that  he  was  performing  God's  work  flowed  from  an 
intense  religious  zeal.  He  belonged,  properly  speaking,  to  the 
Independents,  who  believed  that  each  local  congregation  of 
Christians  should  be  practically  free,  excepting  that  "prelacy" 
{i.e.,  the  episcopal  form  of  church  government)  and  "popery" 
(i.e.,  Roman  Catholic  Christianity)  were  not  to  be  tolerated.  In 
private  life  Cromwell  was  fond  of  "honest  sport,"  of  music  and 
art.  It  is  said  that  his  gayety  when  he  had  "drunken  a  cup  of 
wine  too  much  "  and  his  taste  in  statuary  shocked  his  more 
austere  fellow-Puritans.  In  public  life  he  was  a  man  of  great 
forcefulness,  occasionally  giving  way  to  violent  temper ; 
he  was  a  statesman  of  signal  ability,  aiming  to  secure  good 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  279 

government  and  economic  prosperity  for  England  and  religious 
freedom  for  Protestant  Dissenters. 

After  arbitrarily  dissolving  the  Rump  of  the  Long  Parliament 
(1653),  Cromwell  and  his  Council  of  State  broke  with  tradition 
entirely  by  selecting  140  men  to  constitute  a  legislative  j^^^j^^ 
body  or  convention.  This  body  speedily  recei\'ed  the  Experiments 
popular  appellation  of  "Barebone's  Parliament"  after  ^"^^''^^y 
one  of  its  members,  a  certain  leather  merchant,  who 
bore  the  descriptive  Puritan  name  of  Praisegod  Barebone.  The 
new  legislators  were  good  Independents  —  "faithful,  fearing 
God,  and  hating  covetousness."  Recommended  by  Independent 
ministers,  they  felt  that  God  had  called  them  to  rule  in  right- 
eousness. Their  zeal  for  reform  found  expression  in  the  reduc- 
tion of  public  expenditure,  in  the  equalization  of  taxes,  and 
in  the  compilation  of  a  single  code  of  laws ;  but  their  radical 
proposals  for  civil  marriage  and  for  the  abohtion  of  tithes  startled 
the  clergy  and  elicited  from  the  larger  landowners  the  cry  of 
"confiscation!"  Before  much  was  accomplished,  however,  the 
more  conservative  members  of  "Barebone's  ParHament"  voted 
to  "deHver  up  unto  the  Lord-General  [Cromwell]  the  powers  we 
received  from  him." 

Upon  the  failure  of  this  experiment,  Cromwell's  supporters  in 
the  army  prepared  an  "Instrument  of  Government,"  or  con- 
stitution.    By  this  Instrument  of  Government  —  the  -^j^g  pj-^. 
first     written     constitution     in     modern     times  —  a  tectorate, 
"Protectorate"   was  established,  which  was  a  con-  ^  ^3  i  59 
stitutional  monarchy  in  all  but  name.     Oliver  Cromw^,  who 
became  "Lord   Protector"    for   life,   was   to   govern   with   the 
aid  of  a  small  Council  of  State.     ParHaments,  meeting  at  least 
every  three  years,  were  to  make  laws  and  levy  taxes,  the  Protector 
possessing  the  right  to  delay,  but  not  to  veto,  legislation.     Puri- 
tanism was  made  the  state  religion. 

The  first  Parliament  under  the  Protectorate  was  important 
for  three  reasons,     (i)  It  consisted  of  only  one  House;    (2)  it 
was  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  rather  parliament 
than  of  England  alone;    (3)  its  members  were  elected  under  the 
on  a  reformed  basis  of  representation,  —  that  is,  the 
right  of  representation  had  been  taken  from  many  small  places 
and  transferred  to  more  important  towns. 


28o  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Although  royalists  were  excluded  from  the  polls,  the  Inde- 
pendents were  unable  to  control  a  majority  in  the  general  elec- 
tion, for,  it  must  be  remembered,  they  formed  a  very 
Dictatorship  Small,  though  a  powcrful,  minority  of  the  population. 
°fi^'^°'fi^8^'  '^^^  Presbyterians  in  the  new  Parliament,  with  char- 
acteristic stubbornness,  quarreled  with  Cromwell,  until 
he  abruptly  dismissed  them  (1655).  (Thenceforth  Cromwell 
governed  as  a  mihtary  dictator,  placing  England  under  the  rule 
of  his  generals,  and  quarreling  with  his  Parhaments.  To  raise 
money  he  obhged  all  those  who  had  borne  arms  for  the  king  to 
pay  him  10  per  cent  of  their  rental.  While  permitting  his  office 
to  be  made  hereditary,  he  refused  to  accept  the  title  ofxking,  but 
no  Stuart  monarch  had  ruled  with  such  absolute  powen(  nor  was 
there  much  to  choose  between  James's  "a  dco  rex,  a  rege  lex^' 
and  Cromwell's,  "If  my  calling  be  from  God  and  my  testimony 
from  the  people,  God  and  the  people  shall  take  it  from  me,  else 
Pwill  not  part  from  it." 
/  The  question  is  often  raised,  how  Cromwell,  representing  the 
Miumerically  insignificant  Independents,  contrived  to  maintain 
himself  as  absolute  ruler  of  the  British  Isles.  Three  circum- 
stances may  have  contributed  to  his  strength,  (i)  He  was  the 
beloved  leader  of  an  army  respected  for  its  rigid  disciphne  and 
feared  for  its  grim  mercilessness.  (2)  Under  his  strict  enforce- 
ment of  law  and  order,  trade  and  industry  brought  domestic 
prosperity.  (3)  His  conduct  of  foreign  affairs  was  both  sati^ 
factory  to  Enghsh  patriotism  and  profitable  to  English  purses/ 
Advantageous  commercial  treaties  were  made  with  the  Dutch 
and  the  French.  Industrious  Jews  were  allowed  to  enter  Eng- 
land. Barbary  pirates  were  chastised.  In  a  war  against 
Spain,  the  army  won  Dunkirk ;  and  the  navy,  now  becoming 
truly  powerful,  sank  a  Spanish  fleet,  wrested  Jamaica  from 
Spain,  and  brought  home  ship-loads  of  Spanish  silver. 

The  weakness  of  Cromwell's  position,  however,  was  obvious. 
Cavaliers  were  openly  hostile  to  a  regime  of  religious  zealots; 
moderate  Anglicans  would  suffer  the  despotism  of  Cromwell 
only  as  long  as  it  promoted  prosperity ;  Presbyterians  were 
anxious  to  end  the  toleration  which  was  accorded  to  all  Puritan 
sects ;  radicals  and  republicans  were  eager  to  try  new  experi- 
ments. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  281 

The  death  of  Cromwell  ("1658)  left  the  army  without  a  master 
and   the  country  without  a  government.     True,   Ohver's  son, 
Richard  Cromwell  (1626-17 12),  attempted  for  a  time  oisorgani- 
to  fill  his  father's  place,   but  soon  abdicated  after  zation 
having  lost   control  of  both   army  and  Parliament.  the°Death 
Arm}'  officers  restored  the  Rump  of  the  Long  Parha-  of  ouver 
mcnt,   dissolved  it,   set   it  up  again,   and  forced  it     ^'^^^ 
to  recall  the  Presbyterian  members  who  had  been  expelled  in 
1648,  and  ended  by  obliging  the  reconstituted  Long  Parhament 
to  convoke  a  new  and  freely  elected  "  Convention  Parhament." 
Meanwhile,  General  Monck  opened  negotiations  for  the  return 
of  Charles  XL 

THE  RESTOR.\TION :    THE  REIGN  OF  CIL\RLES  II 

The  widespread  and  exuberant  enthusiasm  which  restored 
the  Stuarts  was  not  entirely  without  causes,  social  and  re- 
hgious,  as  well  as  pohtical.     The  grievances  and  ideals  „ 

°  '  '■  ^  .  .  Popular 

which  had  inspired  the  Great  Rebelhon  were  bemg  Grievances 
forgotten,   and   a  new  generation  was  finding  fault  against  the 
with    the    Protectorate.     The    simple    country    folk 
longed   for  their  may-poles,   their  dances,   and  games  on   the 
green ;    only  fear  compelled  them  to  bear  with  the  tyranny  of 
the   sanctimonious   soldiers   who   broke   the   windows   in    their 
churches.     Especially  hard  was  the  lot  of  tenants  and  laborers 
on  the  many  estates  purchased  or  seized  by  Puritans  during 
the  Rebellion.     Many  townsmen,  too,  excluded  from  the  ruhng 
ohgarchy,    found   the   Puritan   government   as   oppressive   and 
arbitrary  as  that  of  Charles  I. 

(The  rehgious  situation  was  especially  favorable  for  Charles  II. 
Tne  outrages  committed  by  Cromwell's  soldiery  had  caused  the 
Independents  to  be  looked  upon  as  terrible  fanatics,   opposition 
Even  the  Presbyterians  were  wilHng  to  yield  some  to  Pun- 
points  to  the  king,  if  only  Independency  could  be    ^'"^"^ 
overthrown ;    and  many  who  had  been  incHned  to  Puritanism 
were  now  unwavering  in  loyalty  to  the  Anglican  Church.     Ortho- 
dox Anglicanism,  from  its  origin,  had  been  bound  up  with  the 
monarchy,  and  it  now  consistently  expected  a  double  triumph 
of  the  "divine-right"  of  kings  and  of  bishops.     Most  bitter  of 


282  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

all  against  the  Cromwellian  regime  were  the  Roman  Catholics  in 
Ireland.  Though  Cromwell  as  Lord  Protector  had  favored  toler- 
ation for  Protestants,  it  would  be  long  before  CathoHcs  could 
forget  the  Irish  priests  whom  Cromwell's  soldiery  had  brutally 
knocked  on  the  head,  or  the  thousands  of  Catholic  girls  and 
boys  whom  Cromwell's  agents  had  sold  into  horrible  slavery  in 
the  West  Indies. 

This  strong  royaHst  undercurrent,  flowing  from  reUgious 
and  social  conditions,  makes  more  comprehensible  the  ease 
Royalist  witli  whicli  England  drifted  back  into  the  Stuart 
Reaction  monarchy.  The  younger  generation,  with  no  mem- 
ory of  Stuart  despotism,  and  with  a  keen  dislike  for  the  con- 
fusion in  which  no  constitutional  form  was  proof  against  miHtary 
tyranny,  gave  ready  credence  to  Prince  Charles's  promises  of 
constitutional  government.  There  seemed  to  be  little  proba- 
bility that  the  young  monarch  would  attempt  that  arbitrary 
rule  which  had  brought  his  father's  head  to  the  block. 

The  experiment  in  Puritan  repubhcanism  had  resulted  only 
in  convincing  the  majority  of  the  people  that  "the  government 
is,  and  ought  to  be,  by  King,  Lords,  and  Commons." 
166*0-^685'  "^^^  people  merely  asked  for  some  assurances  against 
despotism,  —  and  when  a  throne  was  thus  to  be  pur- 
chased with  promises,  Charles  II  was  a  ready  buyer.  He  swore 
to  observe  Magna  Carta  and  the "*'  Petition  of  Right,"  to  respect 
Parhament,  not  to  interfere  with  its  religious  pohcy,  nor  to 
levy  illegal  taxes.  Bound  by  these  promises,  he  was  welcomed 
back  to  England  in  1660  and  crowned  the  following  year.  The 
reinstatement  of  the  king  was  accompanied  by  a  general  re- 
sumption by  bishops  and  royaHst  nobles  of  their  offices  and 
lands :  things  seemed  to  slip  back  into  the  old  grooves.  Charles 
II  dated  his  reign  not  from  his  actual  accession  but  from  his 
father's  death,  and  his  first  Parhament  declared  invahd  all 
those  acts  and  ordinances  passed  since  1642  which  it  did  not 
specifically  confirm. 

The  history  of  constitutional  government  under  the  restored 
Stuarts  is  a  history  of  renewed  financial  and  religious  chsputes. 
Charles  II  and  his  younger  brother  and  heir,  Prince  James, 
duke  of  York,  alike  adhered  to  the  political  faith  of  their  Stuart 
father   and   grandfather.      Cousins   on  their   mother's   side   of 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  283 

Louis  XIV  of  Franco,  in  whose  court  they  had  been  reared, 
they  were  more  used  to  the  practices  of  French  absolutism 
than  to  the  pecuHar  customs  of  parliamentary  government 
in  England.  /Unlike  their  i^ther,  who  had  been  most  upright 
in  private  life  and  most  loyal  to  the  Anglican  Church,  both 
Charles  and  James  had  acquired  from  their  foreign  environment 
at  once  a  taste  for  vicious  living  and  a  strong  attachment  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  In  these  two  Stuarts  Catholicism 
was  combined  with  absolutism ;  and  the  Englishmen  repre- 
sented in  ParUament  were  therefore  brought  face  to  face  not 
only  witli  a  revival  of  the  earlier  Stuart  theory  of  divine-right 
monarchy  but  with  a  new  and  far  more  hateful  possibility  of  the 
royal  establishment  of  Roman  Catholicism  in  England.  Charles 
II  did  not  publicly  confess  his  conversion  to  Catholicism  until 
liis  deathbed,  but  James  became  a  zealous  convert  in  1672! 
(  That  Charles  II  was  able  to  round  out  a  reign  of  twenty-five 
years  and  die  a  natural  death  as  king  of  England  was  due  not 
so  much  to  his  virtues  as  to  his  faults.  He  was  so  hypocritical 
that  his  real  aims  were  usually  successfully  concealed.  He  was 
so  indolent  that  with  some  show  of  right  he  could  blame  his  min- 
isters and  advisers  for  his  own  mistakes  and  misdeeds.  He  was 
so  selfish  that  he  would  make  concessions  here  and  there  rather 
than  ''embark  again  upon  his  travels."  In  fact,  pure  selfishness 
was  the  basis  of  his  policy  in  domestic  and  foreign  affairs,  but 
it  was  always  avselfishness  veiled  in  wit,  good  humor,  and  cap- 
tivating affability^ 

At  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II,  the  country  gentle- 
men were  astute  enough  to  secure  the  abolition  of  the  surviving 
feudal  rights  by  which  the  king  might  demand  certain  specified 
services  from  them  and  certain  sums  of  money  when  an  heiress 
married  or  a  minor  inherited  an  estate.  This  action,  seemingly 
insignificant,  was  in  reality  of  the  greatest  importance,  for  it 
indicated  the  abandonment  in  England  of  the  feudal  theory  that 
land  is  held  by  nobles  in  return  for  military  service,  and  at  the 
same  time  it  consecrated  the  newer  principle  that  the  land  should 
be  owned  freely  and  personally  —  a  principle  which  has  since 
been  fully  recognized  in  the  United  States  and  other  modern 
countries  as  well  as  in  England.  The  extinction  of  feudal 
prerogatives  in  the  early  days  of  the  Stuart  Restoration  benefited 


284  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

the  landlords  primarily-,  but  the  annual  lump  sum  of  £100,000 
which  Charles  II  was  given  in  return,  was  voted  by  Parhament 
and  was  paid  by  all  classes  in  the  form  of  excise  taxes  on  alcoholic 
drinks.  Customs  duties  of  £4  105.  on  every  tun  of  wine  and 
Renewal  of  5  P'^'^  ^^^^^  ^^  valorem  on  other  imports,  hearth- 
Financial  money  (a  tax  on  houses),  and  profits  on  the  post 
between^  office  contributed  to  make  up  the  royal  revenue  of 
King  and  somewhat  less  than  £1,200,000.  This  was  intended 
arhament  u^  defray  the  ordinary  expenses  of  court  and  gov- 
ernment bttt  seemed  insufficient  to  Charles,  who  was  not  only 
extravagantly  luxurious,  but  desirous  of  increasing  his  power 
by  bribing  members  of  Parhament  and  by  maintaining  a  stand- 
ing army.  The  country  squires  who  had  sold  their  plate  for 
the  royalist  cause  back  in  the  'forties  and  were  now  suffering 
from  hard  times,  thought  the  court  was  too  extravagant ;  to 
this  feehng  was  added  fear  that  Charles  might  hire  foreign 
soldiers  to  oppress  Englishmen.  Consequently  Parhament  grew 
more  parsimonious,  and  in  1665-1667  claimed  a  new  and 
important  privilege  —  that  of  devoting  its  grants  to  specific 
pbjects  and  demanding  an  account  of  expenditures.,/' 

f  Charles,  however,  was  determined  to  have  money  by  fair 
means  or  foul.  A  group  of  London  goldsmiths  had  loaned 
more  than  a  million  and  a  quarter  pounds  sterling  to  the  govern- 
ment. In  1672  Charles  announced  that  instead  of  paying  the 
money  back,  he  would  consider  it  a  permanent  loan.  Two  years 
earlier  he  had  signed  the  secret  treaty  of  Dover  (1670)  with 
Louis  XIV,  by  which  Louis  promised  him  an  annual  subsidy 
of  £200,000  and  troops  in  case  of  rebelhon,  while  Charles  was 
openly  to  join  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  to  aid  Louis  in 
his  French  wars  against  Spain  and  Holland. 

In  his  ambition  to  reestablish  CathoHcism  in  England,  Charles 
underestimated  the  intense  hostility  of  the  bulk  of  the  Eng- 
^     .      ,      Hsh  squires  to  any  religious  innovation.     During  the 

Continued        _  ^         ,         r-   i       x^  •  x^      •         •  111 

Religious  first  decade  of  the  Restoration,  Puritanism  had  been 
Compiica-  most  feared.  Some  two  thousand  clergymen,  mostly 
Presbyterian,  had  been  deprived  of  their  offices  by  an 
Act  of  Uniformity  (1662),  requiring  their  assent  to  the  Anghcan 
prayer-book ;  these  dissenting  clergymen  might  not  return 
within  five  miles  of  their  old  churches  unless  they  renounced 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  285 

the  ''Solemn  League   and    Covenant"    and    swore   loyalty   to 
the  king   (Five-mile  Act,   1665) ;    for  repeated    attendance   at 
their   meetings    (conventicles)    Dissenters    might   be 
condemned  to  penal  servitude  in   the   West   Indies  against 
(Conventicle  Act,    1664);   and   the  Corporation  Act  Protestant 

,     ,     ,   '    .  ^  -^  Dissenters 

of  1 66 1  excluded  Dissenters  from  town  otnces. 

As   tlie  danger  from  Puritanism  disappeared,   the   Catholic 
cloud  darkened  the  horizon.     In  1672  Prince  James,  the  heir 
to   tlie   throne,   embraced   Catholicism ;    and  in   the 
same  year  Charles  II  issued  a  "Declaration  of  In-  chariesii° 
dulgence,"    suspending    the    laws    which    oppressed  toward 
Roman    Catholics    and    incidentally    the    Dissenters  caSoUdsm 
hkewise.     The     Declaration     tlirew     England     into 
paroxysms  of  fear ;  it  was  believed  that  the  Catholic  monarch 
of  FraiK;e  was  about  to  aid  in  the  subversion  of  the  Anglican 
Church  A 

Parliament,  already  somewhat  distrustful  of  Charles's  foreign 
policy,  and  fearful  of  his  leanings  toward  Roman  Catholicism, 
found  in  the  Declaration  of  Indulgence  a  serious  in-  jj^g 
fraction    of    parliamentary    authority.     The    royal  Exclusion 
right    to    "suspend"    laws   upon    occasion   had    un- 
doubtedly   been    exercised    before,    but    ParHament    was    now 
strong  enough  to  insist  upon  the  binding  force  of  its  enactments 
and  to  oblige  Charles  to  withdraw  his  Indulgence.      The  fear 
of  Catholicism  ever  increased ;  gentlemen  who  at  other  times 
were  quite  rational  gave  unhesitating  credence  to  wild  tales  of  a 
"Popish  Plot"  (1678).     In  1679  an  Exclusion  Bill  was  brought 
forward  which  would  debar  Prince  James  from  the  throne,  be- 
cause of  his  conversion  to  Roman  Catholicism. 

In  the  excitement  over  this  latest  assertion  of  parhamentary 
power, ^  two  great  factions  were  formed.  The  supporters  of 
Exclusion  were  led  by  certain  great  nobles  who  were  The 
jealous  of  the  royal  power,  and  were  recruited  from  "  Whigs " 
merchants  and  shop-keepers  who  looked  to  Parliament  to  protect 
their  economic  interests.  Since  many  of  the  adherents  of  this 
political  group  were  Dissenters,  whose  dislike  of  Anglicanism 

^  In  the  course  of  the  debate  over  Exclusion,  the  parliamentary  party  won  an 
important  concession  —  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  of  1679,  which  was  designed  to 
prevent  arbitrary  imprisonment. 


286  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

was  exceeded  only  by  their  hatred  of  "popery,"  the  whole  party 
was  called  by  a  nickname —"  Whig  " — which  had  formerly 
been  appHed  to  rebellious  Presbyterians  in  Scotland. 

Opposed  to  the  Whigs  were  the  "Tories"'-  —  squires  and 
country  clergymen  and  all  others  of  an  essentially  conservative 
The  turn  of  mind.     They  were  anxious  to  preserve  the 

"Tones"  Church  and  state  alike  from  Puritans  and  from  "pa- 
pists," but  most  of  all  to  prevent  a  recurrence  of  civil  war.  In 
the  opinion  of  the  Tories,  the  best  and  most  effective  safeguard 
against  quarrehng  earls  and  insolent  tradesmen  was  the  heredi- 
tary monarchy.  Better  submit  to  a  Roman  Catholic  sover- 
eign, they  said,  than  invite  civil  war  by  disturbing  the  regular 
succession.  In  the  contest  over  the  Exclusion  Bill,  the  Tories 
finally  carried  the  day,  for,  although  the  bill  was  passed  by  the 
Commons  (1680),  it  was  rejected  by  the  House  of  Lords. 

In  the  last  few  years  of  Charles's  reign  the  cause  of  the  Whigs 
was  discredited.  Rumors  got  abroad  that  they  were  plotting 
to  assassinate  the  king  and  it  was  said  that  the  Whig- 
Success  gish  nobles  who  brought  armed  retainers  to  Parliament 
of  the  were   planning   to   use   force   to   estabhsh    Charles's 

Tories  ... 

illegitimate  son  —  the  duke  of  Monmouth  —  on  the 
throne.  These  and  similar  accusations  hurt  the  Whigs  tre- 
mendously, and  help  explain  the  violent  Tory  reaction  which 
enabled  Charles  to  rule  without  Parliament  from  1681  to  his 
death  in  1685.  As  had  been  feared,  upon  the  death  of  Charles  II, 
the  duke  of  Monmouth  organized  a  revolt,  but  this,  together 
with  a  simultaneous  insurrection  in  Scotland,  was  easily  crushed, 
and  James  II  was  securely  seated  on  the  throne. 

THE    "GLORIOUS   REVOLUTION"   AND   THE    FINAL 

ESTABLISHMENT   OF    PARLIAMENTARY 

GOVERNMENT   IN    GREAT   BRITAIN 

In  his  short  reign  of  three  years  James  II  (1685-1688)  suc- 
ceeded in  stirring  up  opposition  on  all  sides.  The  Tories,  the 
party  most  favorable  to  the  royal  prerogative,  upon  whom  he 
might  have  relied,  were  shocked  by  his  attempts  to  create  a 
standing  army  commanded  by   Catholics,   for   such   an   army 

^  Tory,  a  name  applied  to  "popish"  outlaws  in  Ireland. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  287 

might  prove  as  disastrous  to  their  hberties  as  Cromwell's  "New 
Model";  and  the  Whigs,  too,  were  driven  from  sullenness  to 
desperation  by  James's  religious  policy  and  despotic 
government.      James,  Hke  his  brother,  claiming  the  /^5^^^^^ 
right  to  "suspend"  the  laws  and  statutes  which  Par-  1688):  His 
liament  had  enacted  against  Roman  Catholics  and  !i"^"f. 

,  .  r    T     1    1  •       Combina- 

Dissenters,   issued    a   Declaration   of   Indulgence  in  tion  of 
1687,  which  exempted  CathoUcs  and  Dissenters  from  Absolutism 

•  1  r        •    r  •  r      ^  t^        ^  ^""  Roman 

punishnyent  for  mfractions  of  these  laws.  Further-  cathoUcism 
more,  h\appointed  Roman  Cathohcs  to  office  in  the 
army  and  in  the  civil  government.  In  spite  of  protests,  he  is- 
sued a  second  Declaration  of  Indulgence  in  1688  and  ordered  it 
to  be  read  in  all  Anghcan  churches,  and,  when  seven  bishops 
remonstrated,  he  accused  them  of  seditious  libel.  No  jury 
would  con\ict  the  seven  bishops,  however,  for  James  had  alien- 
ated every  class,  and  they  were  acquitted.  The  Tories  were 
estranged  by  what  seemed  to  be  a  deliberate  attack  on  the 
Anglican  Church  and  by  fear  of  a  standing  army.  The  arbi- 
trary disregard  of  parhamentary  legislation,  and  thevfavor 
sho^vn  to  Roman  Cathohcs,  goaded  the  Whigs  into  fury.  \) 

So  long  as  Whigs  and  Tories  ahke  could  look  forward  to  the 
accession  on  the  death  of  James  II  of  his  Protestant  daughters 
—  Mary  or  Anne  —  they  continued  to  acquiesce  in  ^^^ 
his  arbitrary  government.     But  the  outlook  became   "  Glorious 
gloomier  when  on  10  June,  1688,  a  son  was  born  to    (iggs^'^De- 
James  II  by  his  second  wife,  a  Catholic.    Most  Protes-  thronement 
tants  beheved  that  the  prince  was  not  really  James's  °  J^™^^ 
son ;  politicians  prophesied  that  he  would  be  educated  in  his 
father's  "popish"  and  absolutist  doctrines,  and  that  thus  Eng- 
land would  continue  to  be  ruled  by  papist  despots.     Even  those 
who  professed  to  beheve  in  the  divine  right  of  kings  and  had 
denied  the  right  of  Parliament  to  alter  the  succession  were  de- 
jected at  this  prospect,  and  many  of  them  were  willing  to  join 
with  the  Whigs  in  inviting  a  Protestant  to  take  the  throne.     The 
next  in  Hne  of  succession  after  the  infant  prince  was  Mary,  the 
elder  of  Jamea^'s  two  daughters,  wife  of  William  of  Orange,^  and 
an  Anghcan./  Upon  the  invitation  of  Whig  and  Tory  leaders, 
WilUam  croaked  over  to  England  with  an  army  and  entered 

'  ^  See  above,  pp.  245,  248. 


288  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

London  without  opposition  (1688).     Deserted  even  by  his  army, 
James  fled  to  France.^     | 

A  bloodless  revolution  was  now  accomplished  and  the  crown 
was  formally  presented  to  William  and  Mary  by  an  irregular  Par- 
liament, which  also  declared  that  Tames  II,  having 

Accession.  •/  -'  o 

of  William      endeavored   to  subvert  the  constitution  and  having 

and  Mary,     ^^^  from  the  kingdom,  had  vacated  the  throne.     In 
1089  . 

offermg  the  crown  to  William  and  Mary,  Parliament 

was  very  careful  to  safeguard  its  own  power  and  the  Protestant 

religion  by  issuing  a  Declaration  of  Rights  (13  February,  1689), 

which  was  enacted  as  the  Rill  of.^yThts  16  December, 
Constitu-  1689.  This  act  decreecl^  that  the  sovereign  must 
Settlement :  henceforth  belong  to  the  Anglican  Church,  thereby  de^ 
the  Bill  of  barring  the  Catholic  son  of  James  II.  The  act  also 
(1689)  and  denied  the  power  of  a  king  to  "suspend"  laws  or  to 
^i"'"™!!^  "dispense"  subjects  from  obeying  the  laws,  to  levy" 
*ment  money,  or  to  maintain  an  army  without  consent  of 

Parliament ;  .asserted  that  neither  the  free  election 
nor  the  free  speech  and  proceedings  of  members  of  Parliament 
should  be  interfered  with ;  affirmed  the  right  of  subjects  to 
petition  the  sovereign ;  and  demanded  impartial  juries  and 
frequent  Parliaments.  The  Bill  of  Rights,  far  more  important 
in  English  history  than  the  Petition  of  Right  (1628),  inasmuch 
as  Parliament  was  now  powerful  enough  to  maintain  as  well  as 
-pjjg  to  defme  its  rights,  was  supplemented  by  the  prac- 

Mutiny  tice,  begun  in  the  same  year,  1689,  of  granting  taxes 

and  making  appropriations  for  the  army  for  one 
year  only.  Unless  Parliament  were  called  every  year  to  pass  a 
Mutiny  Act  (provision  for  the  army),  the  soldiers  would  receive 

no  pay  and  in  case  of  mutiny  would  not  be  punish- 

Measures  .  "^  ^ 

Favorable      able  by  court  martial. 

to  Land-  Both  Wliigs  and  Tories  had  participated   in   the 

Revolution,  and  both  reaped  rewards.  The  Tories 
were  especially  pleased  with  the  army  laws  and  with  an  arrange- 
ment by  which  farmers  were  given  a  "bounty"  or  money  pre- 
mium for  every  bushel  of  grain  exported.^     The  Whigs,  having 

^  Risings  in  favor  of  James  were  suppressed  in  Ireland  and  in  Scotland.     In 
Ireland  the  famous  battle  of  the  Bo3me  (i  July,  1690)  was  decisive. 
2  That  is,  when  wheat  was  selling  for  less  than  6s.  a  bushel. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  289 

played  a  more  prominent  part  in  the  deposition  of  James  II, 
were   able   to   secure   the  long-coveted  political  supremacy  of 
ParUament,    and   religious    toleration   of   Dissenters.  Religious 
The  Toleration  Act  of  1689  did  not  go  as  far  as  the  Toleration 
Dissenters  might  have  desired,  but  it  gave  them  the  tant  0*13^^ 
legal  right  to  worship  in  pubHc,  while  their  enemies,   senters: 
the  Roman  Catholics,  remained  under  the  ban.  Persetution 

In  the  foreign  poUcy  of  the  reigns  of  William  (1689-  of  Roman 
1702)  and  Mary,  and  of  Anne  (1702-1714),  Whiggish 
policies  generally  predominated.     The  merchants  and  shippers 
who  formed  an  important  wing  of  the  Whig  party  were  highly 
gratified  by  the  Wars  of  the  League  of  Augsburg  and  commer- 
of  the  Spanish  Succession,^  in  which  England  fought  ciai  Gains 
at  once  against  France,  her  commercial  and  colonial    °^    ^^''^ 
rival,  and  against  Louis  XIV,  the  friend  of  the  Catholic  Stuart 
pretenders  to  the  EngHsh  throne.-     The  Methuen  Treaty  (1703) 
was  also  advantageous  :  it  allowed  Enghsh  merchants  „  . 

.  1        •  1  1  •         Union  of 

to  sell  their  manufactures  in  Portugal  without  hm-  England 
drance  ;  in  return  for  this  concession  England  lowered  f "*^  ^^°^' 

•  1     ^   T-.        M  land:  the 

the  duties  on  Portuguese  "svmes,   and    'Port      sup-  Kingdom 
planted  "Burgundy"  on  the  tables  of  English  gentle-  ^^^■^^\ 
men.     The  Act  of  Union  of  1707  was  not  unfavorable, 
either,  for  it  established  common  trade  regulations,  customs, 
and  excise  in  England  and  in  Scotland,  while  it  made  the  West- 
minster Parliament  representative  of  and  supreme  over  both 
England  and  Scotland.     To  the  merely  personal  union  between 
the  crowns  of  England  and  Scotland  which  had  been  inaugurated 
(1603)  by  the  first  of  the  Stuart  monarchs  of  England  now  suc- 
ceeded under  the  last  of  the  Stuart  sovereigns  a  corporate  union 
of  the  two  monarchies  under  the  title  of  the  Kingdom  of  Great 
Britain  (1707). 

Upon  the  death  of  Anne  (1714),  the  crown  passed^  to  her 
cousin,  the  son  of  Sophia  of  Hanover,  George  I  (1714-1727). 
The  new  king,  unable  even  to  speak  the  English  language,  much 
less  to  understand  the  complicated  traditions  of  parliamentary 

^  See  above,  pp.  248  flf.,  and  below,  pp.  306  ff. 

*  Louis  XIV  openly  supported  the  pretensions  of  James  (III),  the  "Old  Pre- 
tender." 

'  In  accordance  with  the  Act  of  Settlement  (1701). 
U 


290  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

government,  was  neither  able  nor  anxious  to  rule,  but  was  con- 
tent merely  to  reign.  The  business  of  administration,  therefore, 
was  handed  over  to  a  group  of  ministers  who  strove 
o/thr^°°  not  only  to  please  their  royal  master  but  to  retain  the 
Hanoverians  good-will  of  the  predoininant  party  in  Parliament. 
Co^nttnued  Since  this  practice,  with  the  many  customs  which 

Decline  have  grown  up  about  it,  has  become  a  most  essential 
Power^  part  of  the  government  of  the  United  Kingdom  to- 
day, and  has  been  copied  in  recent  times  by  many 
other  countries,  it  is  important  to  understand  its  early  history. 
Even  before  the  accession  of  the  Tudors,  the  Great  Council  of 
Rise  of  the  nobles  and  prelates  which  had  advised  and  assisted 
Cabinet  early  kings  in  matters  of  administration  had  sur- 
rendered most  of  its  actual  functions  to  a  score  or  so  of  "Privy 
Councilors."  The  Privy  Council  in  turn  became  unwieldy,  and 
allowed  an  inner  circle  or  "cabal"  of  its  most  energetic  mem- 
bers to  direct  the  conduct  of  affairs.  This  inner  circle  was  called 
a  cabinet  or  cabinet  council,  because  it  conferred  with  the  king 
in  a  small  private  room  (cabinet),  and  under  the  restored 
Stuarts  it  was  extremely  unpopular. 

Wilham  III,  more  interested  in  getting  money  and  troops 
to  defend  his  native  Holland  against  Louis  XIV  than  in  govern- 
ing England,  allowed  his  ministers  free  rein  in  most  matters. 
So  long  as  the  Whigs  held  a  majority  of  the  seats  in  the  Com- 
mons, William  found  that  the  wheels  of  government  turned 
smoothly  if  all  his  ministers  were  Whigs.  On  the  other  hand, 
when  the  Tories  gained  a  preponderance  in  the  Commons, 
the  Whig  ministers  were  so  distasteful  to  the  new  majority  of 
the  Commons  that  it  was  necessary  to  replace  them  with  Tories. 
Queen  Anne,  although  her  sincere  devotion  to  Anglicanism  in- 
clined her  to  the  Tories,  was  forced  to  appoint  Whig  ministers. 
Only  toward  the  close  of  her  reign  (1710)  did  Anne  venture  to 
dismiss  the  Whigs. 

Under  George  I  (17 14-17 27)  it  became  customary  for  the  king 
to  absent  himself  from  cabinet-meetings.  (It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  George  could  not  speak  English.)  This  tended  to 
make  the  cabinet  even  more  independent  of  the  sovereign,  as 
shown  by  the  fact  that  Anne  was  the  last  to  use  her  prerogative 
to  veto  bills.     From  17 14  to  1761  was  the  great  era  of  Whig 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  291 

domination.     Both  George  I  and  George  II  naturally  favored 

the  Whigs,  because  the  Tories  were  supposed  to  desire  a  second 

restoration  of  the  Stuarts.     Certainly  many  of  the  Tories  had 

participated  in  the  vain  attempt  of  the  "  Old  Pretender  "  in  171 5 

to  seat  himself  on  the  British  throne  as  James  III,  and  again 

in  1745  extreme  Tories  took  part  in  the  insurrection  in  Scotland, 

gallantly  led  by  the  Young  Pretender,  ''Prince  Charlie,"  the 

grandson  of  James  II.     Under  these  circumstances  practically 

all  classes  rallied  to  the  support  of  the  Whigs,  who 

stood   for   the   Protestant   monarchy.     Great   Whig  whig 

landowners   controlled    the   rural   districts,    and    the  Domination, 

.     .       1714-1701 
aristocracy  of  the  towns  was  won  by  the  Whiggish 

poHcy  of  devotion  to  public  credit  and  the  protection  of  com- 
merce.    The  extensive  and  continued  power  of  the  Whigs  made 
it  possible  for  Sir  Robert  Walpole,^  a  great  W^hig  ^  1^  ^ 
leader,  to  hold  office  for  twenty-one  years  (i 721-1742),  waipoie 
jealously  watching  and  maintaining  his  supremacy  ^'^^.  ^^ 
under  two  sovereigns — George  I   (i 714-1727)   and 
George  II  (1727-1760).     Though  disclaiming  the  title,  he  was 
recognized  by  every  one  as  the  ''prime  minister"  —  prime  in 
importance,  prime  in  power.     The  other  ministers,  nominally 
appointed  by  the  sovereign,  were  in  point  of  fact  dependent 
upon  him  for  office,  and  he,  though  nominally  appointed  by  the 
crown,  was  really  dependent  only  upon  the  support  of  a  Whig 
majority  in  the  Commons. 

Walpole's  power  was  based  on  poHcy  and  pohtical  manipula- 
tion. His  policy  was  twofold,  the  maintenance  of  peace  and 
of  prosperity.  We  shall  see  elsewhere  how  he  kept  England 
clear  of  costly  Continental  wars.^  His  policy  of  prosperity  was 
based  on  mercantihst  ideas  and  consisted  in  strict  attention  to 
business  methods  in  public  finance,^  the  removal  of  duties  on 
imported  raw  materials,  and  on  exported  manufactures.  In 
spite  of  the  great  prosperity  of  the  period,  there  was  considerable 
criticism  of  Walpole's  policy,  and  "  poKtics  "  alone  enabled  him  to 
persevere  in  it.  By  skillful  partisan  patronage,  by  bestowal  of 
state  offices  and  pensions  upon  members  of  Parliament,  by  open 

^  Created  earl  of  Orford  in  1742. 

^  See  above,  p.  256,  and  below,  pp.  309  £f.,  324  f. 

^  Walpole  was  called  the  "best  master  of  figures  of  any  man  of  his  time." 


292  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

bribery,  and  by  electioneering,  he  secured  his  ends  and  main- 
tained his  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

Walpole's  successors,  —  Henry  Pelham  and  the  duke  of  New- 
castle, —  Hke  him  represented  the  oligarchy  of  Whig  nobles 
William  "^^^  millionaires,  and  even  outdid  him  in  corrupt 
Pitt,  Earl  methods.  Another  section  of  the  Whig  party  under 
of  Chatham  ^^^  leadership  of  WilHam  Pitt  the  elder  (the  earl  of 
Chatham)  won  great  popularity  by  its  condemnation  of  political 
"graft."  Pitt's  fiery  demands  for  war  first  against  Spain  (1739- 
1748)  and  then  against  France  (1756-1763)  were  echoed  by 
patriotic  squires  and  by  the  merchants  who  wished  to  ruin 
French  commerce  and  to  throw  off  the  restrictions  laid  by  Spain 
on  American  commerce.  Pitt  had  his  way  until  George  III, 
a  monarch  determined  to  destroy  the  power  of  the  Whigs,  ap- 
pointed Tory  ministers,  such  as  Lord  Bute  and  Lord  North. 
The  attempt  of  George  III  to  regain  the  power  his  great-grand- 
father had  lost,  to  rule  as  well  as  to  reign,  was  in^ie  end  a  failure, 
and  later  Hanoverians  might  well  have  joined  George  II  in  de- 
claring that  "ministers  are  kings  in  this  country." 

This  indeed  is  the  salient  fact  in  the  evolution  of  constitutional 

government  in  England.     While  in  other  countries  late  in  the 

^.    .^  eighteenth    century  monarchs    still    ruled  by  divine 

Sigmncance  , 

of  EngUsh      right,  in  England  Parliament  and  ministers  were  the  real 

Constitu-       rulers,  and,  in  theory  at  least,  they  ruled  by  the  will 

Develop-       of  the  people.     That  England  was  able  to  develop  this 

ment  in  the    form  of  government  may  have  been  due  in  part  to  her 

Seventeenth    .         ,  *=>    .   .  .  ^    ,        .         ,  ,.   •  1,1 

and  Early  msuiar  position,  her  constitutional  traditions,  and  trie 
Eighteenth  iH-adviscd  conduct  of  the  Stuart  kings,  but  most  of 
all  it  was  due  to  the  great  commercial  and  industrial 
development  which  made  her  merchant  class  rich  and  powerful 
enough  to  demand  and  secure  a  share  in  government. 

In  their  admiration  for  the  English  government,  many  pop- 
ular writers  have  fallen  into  the  error  of  confounding  the 
Qj.g^t  struggle  for  parhamentary  supremacy  with  the  strug- 

Britain  gle    for   democracy.      Nothing    could  be   more  mis- 

fariar^"'  leading.  The  "Glorious  Revolution"  of  1689  was 
but  not  a  coup  d'etat  engineered  by  the  upper  classes,  and  the 

Democratic  i^^^^^y  jj.  preserved  was  the  liberty  of  nobles,  squires, 
and  merchants — not  the  political  liberty  of  the  common  people. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  293 

The  House  of  Commons  was  essentially  undemocratic.     Only 
one  man  in  every  ten  had  even  the  nominal  right  to  vote.     It 
is  estimated  that  from  1760  to  1832  nearly  one-half  of  ^j^^  ^n- 
the  members  owed  their  seats  to  patrons,  and  the  reformed 
representatives  of  large  towns  were  frequently  chosen     ^■■*^™®° 
by  a  handful  of  rich  merchants.     In  fact,  the  government  was 
controlled  by  the  upper  class  of  society,  and  by  only  a  part  of 
that.     No  representatives  sat  for  the  numerous  manufacturing 
towns  which  had  sprung  into  importance  during  the  last  few 
decades,  and  rich  manufacturers  everywhere  complained  that 
the  country  was  being  ruined  by  the  selfish  administration  of 
great  landowners  and  commercial  aristocrats. 

Certain  it  is  that  the  Parhament  of  the  seventeenth  and  eight- 
eenth centuries,  while  wonderfully  earnest  and  successful  in 
enriching  England's  landlords  and  in  demolishing  every  obstacle 
to  British  commerce,  at  the  same  time  either  willfully  neglected 
or  woefully  failed  to  do  away  with  intolerance  in  the  Church  and 
injustice  in  the  courts,  or  to  defend  the  great  majority  of  the 
people  from  the  greed  of  landlords  and  the  avarice  of  employers. 

Designed  as  it  was  for  the  protection  of  selfish  class  interests, 
the  EngHsh  government  was  nevertheless  a  step  in  the  direction 
of  democracy.  The  idea  of  representative  government  as  ex- 
pressed by  Parliament  and  cabinet  was  as  yet  very  narrow,  but 
it  was  capable  of  being  expanded  without  violent  revolution, 
slowly  but  inevitably,  so  as  to  include  the  whole  people. 


294 


HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 


o 
w 

O 

W 

H 


k-    H    C  ^ 


dj= 


5    u^'%    ^^ 


^    < 


S 

"3      -a 
cd     .  O 

.-a 
S 


w    < 


_Q  g 

'da 


■eS 


O       I      4^       '      


>  rs 


ai,- 


H-,00 


u  a 


piJ-O 


3 

a 


-I  i^  C  O  i^ 

rj  CI  a;  -J  a; 

O  ■-  y  3^  > 

M  "   S  3  O 

o  L-o  o  c 


o 


:w 


W3> 


S  P  M 

bOvg  tu        " 

R^  ti  a  o 


(M 


—  ^-  r 


L 


b.S 


.a  i« 


as; 


11 


M'2  a  ^ 

c    o    u   t~ 

rz'^j  K  •- 

Mi-i  — CO 


S-S-o 

l-l 

d 


i)00 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY 


295 


THE  HANOVERIAN   SOVEREIGNS   OF   GREAT   BRITAIN    (1714-1915) 


George  II 
(1727-1760) 

Freaerick, 

Prince  of  Wales, 

d.  1751 

George  III 
11760-1820) 


George  IV 

(1820-1830) 


William  IV 
(1830-1837) 


George  I 
(1714-1727) 


Edward, 

Duke  of  Kent, 

d.  1820 

I 

Victoria 

(1837-1901) 


Edward  \'II 
(1901-1910) 

I 
George  V 
(1910-       ) 


Sophia  m.  Frederick  William  I, 
I        King  of  Prussia 
I  (1713-1740) 

Frederick  the  Great, 
King  of  Prussia 
(1740-1786) 


Victoria  m.  Frederick  III 

d.  1901    I     German  Emperor  (18 

William  II, 

German  Emperor 

(1888-        ) 


ADDITIONAL  READING 


General.  Brief  surveys :  A.  L.  Cross,  History  of  England  and  Greater 
Britain  (1914),  ch.  xxvii-xli ;  T.  F.  Tout,  An  Advanced  History  of  Great 
Britain  (1906),  Book  VI,  Book  VII,  ch.  i,  ii ;  Benjamin  Terry,  A  History 
of  England  (1901),  Part  III,  Book  III  and  Book  IV,  ch.  i-iii;  E.  P.  Chey- 
ney,  A  Short  History  of  England  (1904),  ch.  xiv-xvi,  and,  by  the  same 
author.  An  Introduction  to  the  Industrial  and  Social  History  of  England 
(1901).  More  detailed  narratives :  J.  F.  Bright,  History  of  England,  ^yols. 
(1884-1904),  especially  Vol.  II,  Personal  Monarchy,  1485-1688,  and  Vol. 
Ill,  Constitutional  Monarchy,  i68p~i8jy;  Cambridge  Modern  History, 
Vol.  IV  (1906).  ch.  viii-xi,  xv-xix.  Vol.  V  (1908),  ch.  v,  ix-xi,  xv ;  H.  D. 
Traill  and  J.  S.  Mann  (editors).  Social  England,  illus.  ed.,  6  vols,  in  12 
(1909),  Vol.  IV;  A.  D.  Innes,  History  of  England  and  the  British  Empire, 
4  vols.  (1914),  Vol.  II,  ch.  x-xvi;  G.  M.  Trevelyan,  England  under  the 
Stuarts,  1603-1714  (1904),  brilliant  and  suggestive;  Leopold  von  Ranke, 
History  of  England,  Principally  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  Eng.  trans., 
6  vols.  (1875),  particularly  valuable  for  foreign  relations;  Edward  Dowden, 
Puritan  aiui  Anglican  (1901),  an  interesting  study  of  literary  and  intellec- 
tual England  in  the  seventeenth  century ;  John  Lingard,  History  of  Eng- 
land to  1688,  new  ed.  (1910)  of  an  old  but  valuable  work  by  a  scholarly 
Roman  Catholic,  Vols.  VII-X ;  H.  W.  Clark,  History  of  English  Non- 
conformity, Vol.  I  (191 1)',  Book  II,  ch.  i-iii,  and  Vol.  II  (1913),  Book  III, 
ch.  i,  ii,  the  best  and  most  recent  study  of  the  role  of  the  Protestant  Dis- 
senters;  W.  R.  W.  Stephens  and  William  Hunt  (editors),  History  of  the 


296  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Church  of  England,  the  standard  history  of  AngHcanism,  of  Avhich  Vol.  V 
(1904),  by  W.  H.  Frere,  treats  of  the  years  1558-1625,  and  Vol.  VI  (1903), 
by  W.  H.  Hutton,  of  the  years  1625-1714.  On  Scotland  during  the  period : 
P.  H.  Brown,  History  of  Scotland,  3  vols.  (1899-1909),  Vols.  II,  III ;  Andrew 
Lang,  A  History  of  Scotland  from  the  Roman  Occupation,  2d  ed.,  4  vols. 
(1901-1907),  Vols.  Ill,  IV.  On  Ireland:  Richard  Bagwell,  Ireland  under 
the  Tudors,  3  vols.  (1885-1S90),  and  Ireland  under  the  Stuarts  and  during 
the  Interregnum,  2  vols.  (1909).  Convenient  source-material:  G.  W. 
Prothero,  Select  Statutes  and  Other  Constitutional  Documents  Illustrative 
of  the  Reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  I,  4th  ed.  (1913) ;  S.  R.  Gardiner, 
The  Constitutional  Documents  of  the  Puritan  Revolution,  162S-1660,  2d  ed. 
(1899);  C.  G.  Robertson,  Select  Statutes,  Cases,  and  Documents,  1660-1832 
(1904) ;  E.  P.  Cheyney,  Readings  in  English  History  Drawn  from  the 
Original  Sources  (1908) ;  Frederick  York  Powell,  English  History  by  Con- 
temporary Writers,  8  vols.  (1887) ;  C.  A.  Beard,  An  Introduction  to  the 
English  Historians  (1906),  a  collection  of  extracts  from  famous  secondary 
works. 

The  English  Constitution  in  the  Seventeenth  Century.  F.  W.  Maitland, 
The  Constitutional  History  of  England  (1908),  Periods  III,  IV,  special 
studies  of  the  English  government  in  1625  and  in  1702  by  an  eminent 
authority;  D.  J.  Medley,  A  Student's  Manual  of  English  Constitutional 
History,  5th  ed.  (1913),  topical  treatment,  encyclopedic  and  dry;  T.  P. 
TasweU-Langmead,  English  Constitutional  History,  7th  ed.  rev.  by  P.  A. 
Ashworth  (191 1),  ch.  xiii-xvi,  narrative  style  and  brief;  Henry  HaUam, 
Constitutional  History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  Henry  VII  to 
the  Death  of  George  II,  an  old  work,  first  pub.  in  1827,  still  useful,  new  ed., 
3  vols.  (1897).  The  best  summary  of  the  evolution  of  English  parHamen- 
tary  government  in  the  middle  ages  is  A.  B.  White,  The  Making  of  the 
English  Constitution,  44Q-148J  (1908),  Part  III.  In  support  of  the  pre- 
tensions of  the  Stuart  kings,  see  J.  N.  Figgis,  The  Divine  Right  of  Kings, 
2d  ed.  (1914) ;  and  in  opposition  to  them,  see  G.  P.  Gooch,  English 
Democratic  Ideas  in  the  Seventeenth  Century  (1898). 

James  I  and  Charles  I.  S.  R.  Gardiner,  The  First  Two  Stuarts  and  the 
Puritan  Revolution,  7th  ed.  (1887),  a  brief  survey  in  the  "  Epochs  of  Modern 
History  "  Series  by  the  most  prolific  and  most  distinguished  writer  on  the 
period,  and,  by  the  same  author,  the  elaborate  History  of  England  from  the 
Accession  of  James  I  to  the  Outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  10  vols.  (1883-1884), 
History  of  the  Great  Civil  War,  1642-1649,  4  vols.  (1893),  and  Constitu- 
tional Documents  of  the  Puritan  Revolution  (1899) ;  F.  C.  Montague,  Polit- 
ical History  of  England,  160J-1660  (1907),  an  accurate  and  strictly  political 
narrative ;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  Ill,  ch.  xvi,  xvii,  on  Spain  and 
England  in  the  time  of  James  I.  Clarendon's  History  of  the  Great  Rebellion, 
the  classic  work  of  a  famous  royalist  of  the  seventeenth  century,  is  strongly 
partisan  and  sometimes  untrustworthy :  the  best  edition  is  that  of  W.  D, 
Macray,  6  vols.  (1886).  R.  G.  Usher,  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  High  Com- 
mission (1913),  is  an  account  of  one  of  the  arbitrary  royal  courts.     Valu- 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  297 

able  biographies:  H.  D.  Traill,  Sirajford  (1889);  W.  H.  Hutton,  Laud 
(i8q5);  E.  C.  Wade,  John  Pym  (1912);  C.  R.  Markham,  Life  of  Lord 
Fairfax  (1S70). 

The  Cromwellian  Regime.  The  standard  treatise  is  that  of  S.  R.  Gar- 
diner, The  History  of  the  Commomccalth  and  Protectorate,  4  vols.  (1903). 
Among  numerous  biographies  of  Oliver  Cromwell,  the  following  are  note- 
worth}'  :  C.  H.  Firth,  Cromwell  (1900),  in  "  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series  ; 
S.  R.  Gardiner,  Cromwell  (1899),  and,  by  the  same  author,  Cromwell's  Place 
in  History  (1S97) ;  John  (Viscount)  Morley,  Oliver  Cromwell  (1899) ;  A.  F. 
Pollard,  Factors  in  Modern  History  (1907),  ch.  ix-x;  Thomas  Carlyle, 
Crom-welVs  Letters  and  Speeches,  ed.  by  S.  C.  Lomas,  3  vols.  (1904).  The 
Diary  of  John  Evelyn,  a  royahst  contemporary,  affords  naturally  a  some- 
what different  point  of  view:  the  best  edition  is  that  of  H.  B.  Wheatley, 
4  vols.  (1906).  \'arious  special  phases  of  the  regime:  C.  H.  Firth,  Crom- 
wclVs  Army,  2d  ed.  (1912) ;  Edward  Jenks,  The  Constitiitioual  Experi- 
ments of  the  Protectorate  (1S90) ;  Sir  J.  R.  Seeley,  Growth  of  British  Policy, 
\'ol.  II  (1895),  Part  III;  G.  L.  Beer,  Cromwell's  Policy  in  its  Economic 
Aspects  (1902);  Sir  W.  L.  Clowes,  The  Royal  Navy:  a  History,  Vol.  II 
(1898) ;  G.  B.  Tatham,  The  Puritans  in  Power,  a  Study  of  the  English 
Church  from  1640  to  1660  (1913) ;  W.  A.  Shaw,  History  of  the  English  Church, 
1640-1660,  2  vols.  (1900) ;  Robert  Dunlop,  Ireland  under  the  Common- 
wealth, 2  vols.  (1913),  largely  a  collection  of  documents;  C.  H.  Firth,  The 
Last   Years  of  the  Protectorate,  2  vols.  (1909). 

The  Restoration.  Richard  Lodge,  T/ie  Political  History  of  England, 
i66o~ijn2,  a  survey  of  the  chief  political  facts,  conservative  in  tone ;  J.  N. 
Figgis,  English  History  Illustrated  from  Original  Sources,  i66o~ijis  (1902), 
a  convenient  companion  volume  to  Lodge's ;  Osmund  Airy,  Charles  II 
(1901),  inimical  to  the  first  of  the  restored  Stuart  kings.  Of  contemporary 
accounts  of  the  Restoration,  the  most  entertaining  is  Samuel  Pepys,  Diary, 
covering  the  years  1659-1669  and  written  by  a  bibulous  public  official, 
while  the  most  valuable,  though  tainted  with  strong  Whig  partisanship, 
is  GUbert  (Bishop)  Burnet,  History  of  My  Own  Times,  edited  by  Osmimd 
Airy,  2  vols.  (1897-1900).  See  also  H.  B.  Wheatley,  Samuel  Pepys  and 
the  World  he  Lived  In  (1880).  Special  topics  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II: 
W.  E.  Sydney,  Social  Life  in  England,  i66o-i66g  (1892) ;  J.  H.  Overton, 
Life  in  the  English  Church,  1660-1714  (1885) ;  John  Pollock,  The  Popish 
Plot  (1903) ;  J.  A.  Roebuck,  History  of  the  Whig  Party,  2  vols.  (1852) ; 
C.  B.  R.  Kent,  TJic  Early  History  of  the  Tories  (1908). 

James  II  and  the  "  Glorious  Revolution."  The  best  brief  account  is 
that  of  Arthur  Hassall,  The  Restoration  and  the  Revolution  (191 2).  The 
classic  treatment  is  that  of  T.  B.  (Lord)  Macaulay,  History  of  England, 
1685-1702,  a  literary  masterpiece  but  marred  by  vigorous  Whig  sympathies, 
new  ed.  by  C.  H.  Firth,  6  vols.  (1913-1914).  Sir  James  Mackintosh, 
Review  of  the  Causes  of  the  Revolution  of  1688  (1834),  an  old  work  but  still 
prized  for  the  large  collection  of  documents  in  the  appendix;  Adventures 
of  James  II  (1904),  an  anonymous  and  sympathetic  account  of  the  career 


298  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

of  the  deposed  king;  H.  B.  Irving,  Life  of  Lord  Jefreys  (1898),  an  apology 
for  a  much-assailed  agent  of  James  II;  Alice  Shield  and  Andrew  Lang, 
The  King  over  the  Water  (1907),  and,  by  the  same  authors,  Henry  Stuart, 
Cardinal  of  York,  and  his  Times  (1908),  popular  treatments  of  subsequent 
Stuart  pretenders  to  the  British  throne.  A  good  account  of  the  reign  of 
William  III  is  that  of  Sir  J.  R.  Seeley,  Growth  of  British  Policy,  Vol.  II 
(1895),  Part  V. 

Great  Britain  in  the  First  Half  of  the  Eighteenth  Century.  General 
histories:  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  VI  (1909),  ch.  i-iii ;  I.  S. 
Leadam,  Political  History  of  England,  iyo2~iy6o  (1909),  conservative  and 
matter-of-fact ;  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  A  History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century,  new  ed.,  7  vols.  (1892-1899),  especially  Vol.  I,  brilliantly  written 
and  very  informing,  and,  by  the  same  author,  A  History  of  Ireland  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  5  vols.  (1893) ;  C.  G.  Robertson,  England  under  the 
Hanoverians  (1911),  ch.  i,  ii,  iv ;  Earl  Stanhope  (Lord  Mahon),  History 
of  England  from  the  Peace  of  Utrecht  to  the  Peace  of  Versailles,  171 3-1783, 
5th  ed.,  7  vols.  (185S),  particularly  Vols.  I,  II,  tedious  but  still  useful  es- 
pecially for  foreign  affairs.  On  the  union  of  England  and  Scotland  :  P.  H. 
Brown,  The  Legislative  Union  of  England  and  Scotland  (1914) ;  W.  L. 
Matthieson,  Scotland  and  the  Union,  i6gs-i747  (1905) ;  Daniel  Defoe, 
History  of  the  Union  between  England  and  Scotland  (1709).  On  the  rise 
of  the  cabinet  system :  Mary  T.  Blauvelt,  The  Development  of  Cabinet 
Government  in  England  (1902),  a  clear  brief  outline;  Edward  Jenks,  Parlia- 
mentary England:  the  Evolution  of  the  Cabinet  System  (1903);  and  the 
general  constitutional  histories  mentioned  above.  The  best  account  of 
Sir  Robert  Walpole  is  the  biography  by  John  (Viscount)  Morley  (1889). 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE   WORLD    CONFLICT   OF   FRANCE   AND    GREAT   BRITAIN 

FRENCH  AND  ENGLISH  COLONIES  IN  THE  SEVENTEENTH 

CENTURY 

[n  the  sixteenth  century,  while  Spain  and  Portugal  were  carv- 
ing out  vast  empires  beyond  the  seas,  the  sovereigns  of  France 
and  England,  distracted  by  religious  dissensions  or  absorbed  in 
European  politics,  did  httle  more  than  to  send  out  a  few  pri- 
vateers and  explorers.  But  in  the  seventeenth  century  the 
England  of  the  Stuarts  and  the  France  of  the  Bourbons  found 
in  colonies  a  refuge  for  their  discontented  or  venturesome  sub- 
jects, a  source  of  profit  for  their  merchants,  a  field  for  the  ex- 
ercise of  religious  zeal,  or  gratification  for  national  pride. 
Eve^>^^'here  were  commerce  and  colonization  growing  apace, 
and  especially  were  they  beginning  to  play  a  large  part  in  the 
national  life  of  England  and  of  France.  We  have  already  noticed 
how  the  Dutch,  themselves  the  despoilers  of  Portugal  ^  in  the 
first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  were  in  turn  attacked  by 
the  English  in  a  series  of  commercial  wars  -  during  the  second 
half  of  the  seventeenth  century.  By  1688  the  period  of  active 
growth  was  past  for  the  colonial  empires  of  Holland,  Portugal, 
and  Spain ;  but  England  and  France,  beginning  to  realize  the 
possibilities  for  power  in  North  America,  in  India,  and  on  the 
high  seas,  were  just  on  the  verge  of  a  world  conflict,  which,  after 
raging  intermittently  for  more  than  a  hundred  years,  was  to 
leave  Great  Britain  the  "mistress  of  the  seas." 

'  See  above,  pp.  58  f. 

2 The  Dutch  Wars  of  1652-1654,  1665-1667,  and  1672-1674.  See  above, 
PP-  59,  243,  278. 

299 


300  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Before  plunging  into  the  struggle  itself,  let  us  review  the  posi- 
tions of  the  two  rivals  in  1688  :  first,  their  claims  and 
Position  of     possessions  in  the  New  World  and  in  the  Old ;  secondly, 
the  Rivals      their  comparative  resources  and  poHcies. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  ilie  voyage  of  John 
Cabot  (1497)  gave  England  a  claim  to  the  mainland  of  North 
America.  The  Tudors  (1485-1603),  however,  could  not  occupy 
so  vast  a  territory,  nor  were  there  any  fences  for  the  exclusion  of 
In  North  intruders.  Consequently  the  actual  English  settle- 
America  ments  in  North  America,  made  wholly  under  the 
Stuarts,^  were  confined  to  Newfoundland,  to  a  few  fur  depots  in 
the  region  of  Hudson  Bay,  and  to  a  strip  of  coastland  from 
Maine  to  South  Carolina ;  while  the  French  not  only  had  sent 
Verrazano  (1524),  who  explored  the  coast  of  North  America, 
and  Cartier  (i 534-1 536),  who  sailed  up  the  St.  Lawrence,  but 
by  virtue  of  voyages  of  discovery  and  exploration,  especially 
that  of  La  Salle  (1682),  laid  claim  to  the  whole  interior  of  the 

..Continent. 

',  Of  all  the  North  American  colonies,  the  most  populous  were 
those  which  later  became  the  United  States.  Li  the  year  1688 
there  were  ten  of  these  colonies.  The  oldest  one,  Virginia,  had 
been  settled  in  1607  by  the  London  Company  under  a  charter 
from  King  James  I.  Plymouth,  founded  in  1620  by  the  Pilgrims 
(Separatists  or  Independents  driven  from  England  by  the  en- 
forcement of  rehgious  conformity  to  the  Anglican  Church),  was 
presently  to  be  merged  with  the  neighboring  Puritan  colony 
of  Massachusetts.  Near  these  first  New  England  settlements 
had  grown  up  the  colonies  of  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  and 
New  Hampshire :  Maine  was  then  a  part  of  Massachusetts. 
Just  as  New  England  was  the  Puritans'  refuge,  so  Maryland, 
granted  to  Lord  Baltimore  in  1632,  was  a  haven  for  the  perse- 
cuted Roman  Catholics.  A  large  tract  south  of  Virginia,  known 
as  Carolina,  had  been  granted  to  eight  nobles  in  1663  ;  but 
it  was  prospering  so  poorly  that  its  proprietors  were  willing  to 
sell  it  to  the  king  in  1729  for  a  mere  £50,000.     The  capture  of 

^  However  much  modern  Englishmen  may  condemn  the  efforts  of  the  Stuart 
sovereigns  to  estabhsh  political  absolutism  at  home,  they  can  well  afford  to  praise 
these  same  royal  Stuarts  for  contributing  powerfully  to  the  foundations  of  England's 
commercial  and  colonial  greatness  abroad. 


EUROPEAN  COLONIES 

IN 

NORTH  AMERICA,  1C88         (rti^ 

ScaU'  of  Miles 
0      mo    200  400  GOO 


^    A     N         S    E    ^      »-«■'       \  i 
R     I      B    B     C    A     ^  If  St  ^"        g 

'ROVIDENCE  I  ^^    q  " 


Ca, 


•v 


t-ai|i' 


1  I  EiiKliMi  PusK.jHsions  V^ 

I J  Fr»*iii*h  Pofnessious 

[T^  Spaniel.  Po.M;ssiou8 

1 1  Territory  hi  dlsnute  between  French  ami  Kn^Miwh 

Tht  AVh'  2ietherland»,  inchuling  the  Swedish  Settlements 
^~^     o?^  the  Delaware  which  had  been  annexed  by  the  Dutch  in 
to  Enyland  in  1GG4. 


/'/ 


I  1055,  wi-rc  ceded  I 


.&.. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  301 

the  Dutch  colony  of  New  Netherland  ^  in  1664,  and  the  settle- 
ment of  Pennsylvania  (1681)  by  William  Penn  and  his  fellow 
Quakers  -  at  last  filled  up  the  gap  between  the  North  and  the 
Sj>uth. 

(/Numerous  causes  had  contributed  to  the  growth  of  the  British 
feolonies  in  America.  Rehgious  intolerance  had  driven  Puritans 
to  New  England  and  Roman  Catholics  to  Maryland  ;  the  success 
of  the  Puritan  Revolution  had  sent  Cavaliers  to  Virginia ;  thou- 
sands of  ot^iers  had  come  merely  to  acquire  wealth  or  to  escape 
starvation.  J  And  America  seemed  a  place  wherein  to  mend 
broken  fortunes.  Upon  the  estates  (plantations)  of  southern 
gentlemen  negro  slaves  toiled  without  pay  in  the  tobacco  fields.^ 
New  England  was  less  fertile,  but  shrewd  Yankees  found  wealth 
in  fish,  lumber,  and  trade.  No  wonder,  then,  that  the  colonies 
grew  in  wealth  and  in  population  until  in  1688  there  were 
nearly  three  hundred  thousand  English  subjects  in  the  New 
World. 

The  French  settlers  were  far  less  numerous*  but  more  wide- 
spread. From  their  first  posts  in  Acadia  (1604)  and  Quebec 
(1608)  they  had  pushed  on  up  the  St.  Lawrence.  Jesuit  and 
other  Roman  Catholic  missionaries  had  led  the  way  from  Mon- 
treal westward  to  Lake  Superior  and  southward  to  the  Ohio 
River.  In  1682  the  Sieur  de  La  Salle,  after  paddhng  down  the 
Mississippi,  laid  claim  to  the  whole  basin  of  that  mighty  stream, 
and  named  the  region  Louisiana  in  honor  of  Louis  XIV  of  France. 
Nominally,  at  least,  this  territory  was  claimed  by  the  English, 
for  in  most  of  the  colonial  charters  emanating  from  the  English 
crown  in  the  seventeenth  century  were  clauses  which  granted 
lands  "from  sea  to  sea"  —  that  is,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the 
Pacific.  The  heart  of  "New  France"  remained  on  the  St.  Law- 
rence, but,  despite  English  claims,  French  forts  were  commenc- 
ing to  mark  the  trails  of  French  fur-traders  down  into  the 
"Louisiana,"  and  it  was  clear  that  whenever  the  English  colonists 

^  Rechristened  New  York.     It  included  New  Jersey  also. 

-  The  Swedish  colony  on  the  Delaware  was  temporarily  merged  with  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

^  Subsequently,  rice  and  cotton  became  important  products  of  Southern  agri- 
culture. 

■*  Probably  not  more  than  20,000  Frenchmen  were  residing  in  the  New  World 
in  1688.     By  1750  their  number  had  increased  perhaps  to  60,000. 


302  HISTORY   OF   MODERN    EUROPE 

should  cross  the  Appalachian  Mountains  to  the  westward  they 
would  have  to  fight  the  French. 

French  and  Enghsh  were  neighbors  also  in  the  West  Indies. 
Martinique  and  Guadeloupe  acknowledged  French  sovereignty, 
In  West  while  Jamaica,  Barbados,  and  the  Bahamas  were 
Indies  English.-^     These  holdings  in  the  West  Indies    were 

valuable  not  only  for  their  sugar  plantations,  but  for  their  con- 
venience as  stations  for  trade  with  Mexico  and  South  America. 

In  Africa  the  French  had  made  settlements  in  Madagascar, 

at  Goree,  and  at  the  mouth  of  the  Senegal  River,  and  the  English 

had  established  themselves  in  Gambia  and  on  the  Gold 

In  Afnca  ^  i  i       *  r  • 

Coast,  but  as  yet  the  Atrican  posts  were  mere  stations 
for  trade  in  gold-dust,^  ivory,  wax,  or  slaves.  The  real  struggle 
for  Africa  was  not  to  come  until  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth 
centuries. 

Of  far  greater  importance  was  Asiatic  India,  which,  unlike 
America  or  even  Africa,  offered  a  field  favorable  for  commerce 
rather  than  for  conquest  or  for  colonization.  For  it 
happened  that  the  fertility  and  extent  of  India  —  its 
area  was  half  as  large  as  that  of  Europe  —  were  taxed  to  their 
uttermost  to  support  a  population  of  probably  two  hundred 
millions ;  and  all,  therefore,  which  Europeans  desired  was  an 
opportunity  to  buy  Indian  products,  such  as  cotton,  indigo, 
spices,  dyes,  drugs,  silk,  precious  stones,  and  peculiar  manu- 
factures. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  India  was  ruled  by  a  dynasty  of 
Mohammedan  emperors  called  Moguls,^  who  had  entered  the 
peninsula  as  conquerors  in  the  previous  century  and  had  estab- 
lished a  splendid  court  in  the  city  of  Delhi  on  a  branch  of  the 
Ganges.  The  bulk  of  the  people,  however,  maintained  their 
ancient  "Hindu"  religion  with  their  social  ranks  or  ''castes," 
and  preserved  their  distinctive  speech  and  customs.     Over  a 

^  The  following  West  Indies  were  also  English :  Nevis,  Montserrat,  Antigua, 
Honduras,  St.  Lucia,  Virgin  Islands,  and  the  Turks  and  Caicos  Islands.  St.  Kitts 
was  divided  between  England  and  France ;  and  the  western  part  of  Haiti,  already 
visited  by  French  buccaneers,  was  definitely  annexed  to  France  in  1697.  The 
Bermudas,  lying  outside  the  "  West  Indies,"  were  already  English. 

2  Gold  coins  are  still  often  called  "guineas"  in  England,  from  the  fact  that  a  good 
deal  of  gold  used  to  come  from  the  Guinea  coast  of  Africa. 

*  So  called  because  racially  they  were  falsely  supposed  to  be  Mongols  or  Moguls. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  303 

country  like  India,  broken  up  into  many  sections  by  physical 
features,  climate,  industries,  and  language,  the  Mohammedan 
conquerors, —  the  ''Great  Mogul"  and  his  viceroys,  called 
nawabs,^  —  found  it  impossible  to  establish  more  than  a  loose 
sovereignty,  many  of  the  native  princes  or  "rajas"  still  being 
allowed  to  rule  with  considerable  independence,  and  the  millions 
of  Hindus  feeling  little  love  or  loyalty  for  their  emperor.  It 
was  this  fatal  weakness  of  the  Great  Mogul  which  enabled  the 
European  traders,  who  in  the  seventeenth  century  besought  his 
favor  and  protection,  to  set  themselves  up  in  the  eighteenth  as 
his  masters. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  after  the  voyage  of  Vasco  da  Gama 
the  Portuguese  had  monopolized  the  trade  with  India  and  the 
East  until  they  had  been  attacked  by  the  Dutch  toward  the 
close  of  the  sixteenth  century.  This  was  the  very  time  when 
the  Enghsh  were  making  their  first  voyages  ^  to  the  East  and 
were  taking  advantage  of  their  own  war  with  Philip  II  to 
attack  liis  Portuguese  possessions.  The  first  EngHsh  trading 
stations  were  opened  at  Masulipatam  (161 1)  and  at  Surat  (161 2). 
In  the  latter  year  and  again  in  161 5  Portuguese  fleets  were  de- 
feated, and  in  1622  the  Portuguese  were  driven  out  of  the 
important  Persian  city  of  Ormuz.  By  1688  the  English  had 
acquired  three  important  points  in  India,  (i)  Calcutta  in  the 
delta  of  the  Ganges  had  been  occupied  in  1686,  but  it  was  yet 
uncertain  whether  the  English  could  hold  it  against  the  will  of 
the  Mogul  emperor.  (2)  At  Madras,  further  south.  Sir  Francis 
Day  had  built  Fort  St.  George  (1640).  (3)  On  the  western  coast, 
the  trading  station  of  Surat  was  now  surpassed  in  value  by 
Bombay,  the  dowry  of  Catherine  of  Braganza,  a  Portuguese 
princess,  who  had  married  King  Charles  II  (1662). 

The  first  French  Company  for  Eastern  trade  had  been  formed 
only  four  years  ^  after  the  English  East  India  Company,  but  the 
first  French  factory  in  India  —  at  Surat  —  was  not  established 
until  1668  and  the  French  did  not  seriously  compete  with  the 

^  More  popularly,  "nabobs." 

2  Actually  the  first  English  voyage  to  the  East  Indies  was  made  between  1591 
and  1594,  almost  a  century  after  the  first  Portuguese  voyage. 

^  Charters  to  French  companies  had  been  granted  in  1604  and  in  1615.  The 
Compagnie  des  hides  was  formed  in  1642,  and  reconstructed  in  1664. 


304  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

English  and  Dutch  in  India  until  the  close  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  However,  their  post  at  Chandarnagar  (1672),  in 
dangerous  proximity  to  Calcutta,  and  their  thriving  station 
at  Pondicherry  (1674),  within  a  hundred  miles  of  Madras, 
augured  ill  for  the  future  harmony  of  French  and  English  in 
India. 

From  the  foregoing  brief  review  of  the  respective  colonial 
possessions  of  Great  Britain  and  France  in  the  year  1688,  it 
must  now  be  clear  that  although  France  had  entered 
^°^^Q^  the  colonial  competition  tardily,  she  had  succeeded 
sources  of  remarkably  well  in  becoming  a  formidable  rival  of  the 
ErTg^and '^  EngHsli.  The  great  struggle  for  supremacy  was  to  be 
decided,  nevertheless,  not  by  priority  of  settlement 
or  validity  of  claim,  but  by  the  fighting  power  of  the  contest- 
ants. Strange  as  it  may  seem,  France,  a  larger,  more  populous, 
and  richer  country  than  England,  able  then  single-handed  to 
keep  the  rest  of  Europe  at  bay,  was  to  prove  the  weaker  of  the 
two  in  the  struggle  for  world  empire. 

In  the  first  place,  England's  maritime  power  was  increasing 
more  irresistibly  than  that  of  France.  Although  Richelieu 
(1624-1642)  had  recognized  the  need  for  a  French  navy  and  had 
given  a  great  impetus  to  ship-building,  France  had  become  in- 
extricably entangled  in  European  politics,  and  the  navy  was  half 
forgotten  in  the  ambitious  land  wars  of  Louis  XIV.  The  Eng- 
lish, on  the  other  hand,  were  predisposed  to  the  sea  by  the  very 
fact  of  their  insularity,  and  since  the  days  of  the  great  Armada, 
their  most  patriotic  boast  had  been  of  the  deeds  of  mariners. 
In  the  commercial  wars  with  Holland,  the  first  great  English 
admiral  —  Robert  Blake  —  had  won  glorious  victories. 

Then,  too,  the  Navigation  Acts  (1651,  1660),  by  excluding 
foreign  ships  from  trade  between  Great  Britain  and  the  colonies, 
may  have  lessened  the  volume  of  trade,  but  they  resulted 
in  undoubted  prosperity  for  English  shippers.  English  ship- 
builders, encouraged  by  bounties,  learned  to  build  stronger  and 
more  powerful  vessels  than  those  of  other  nations.  Whether 
capturing  galleons  on  the  "Spanish  main"  or  defeating  Portu- 
guese fleets  in  the  Far  East,  English  pirates,  slavers,  and  mer- 
chantmen were  not  to  be  encountered  without  fear  or  envy. 
English  commerce  and  industry,  springing  up  under  the  protec- 


DVNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL    RIVALRY  305 

tion  and  encouragement  of  tlie  Tudors,  had  given  birth,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  a  middle  class  powerful  enough  to  secure  special 
rights  and  privileges  through  Parliament. 

The  French,  on  the  other  hand,  labored  under  most  serious 
commercial  handicaps.  Local  tolls  and  internal  customs-duties 
hindered  traflfic ;  and  the  medieval  gild  system  had  retained  in 
France  its  power  to  hamper  industry  with  absurd  regulations. 
The  long  ci\'il  and  religious  wars,  which  called  workmen  from 
their  benches  and  endangered  the  property  and  lives  of  mer- 
chants, had  resulted  in  reducing  French  commerce  to  a  shadow 
before  1600.  Under  Henry  IV  prosperity  revived,  but  the 
growth  of  ro}-al  power  made  it  impossible  for  the  Huguenot 
merchants  in  France  to  achieve  political  power  comparable  with 
that  which  the  Puritans  won  in  England.  Consequently  the 
mercantile  classes  were  quite  unable  to  prevent  Louis  XIV  from 
ruining  his  country  by  foreign  war,  —  they  could  not  vote  them- 
selves pri\'ileges  and  bounties  as  in  England,  nor  could  they 
declare  war  on  commercial  rivals.  True,  Colbert  (1662-1683), 
the  great  "mercantilist"  minister,  did  his  best  to  encourage  new 
industries,  such  as  silk  production,  to  make  rules  for  the  better 
conduct  of  old  industries,  and  to  lay  taxes  on  such  imported 
goods  as  might  compete  with  home  products,  but  French  indus- 
try could  not  be  made  to  thrive  like  that  of  England.  It  is 
often  said  that  Colbert's  careful  regulations  did  much  harm  by 
stifling  the  spirit  of  free  enterprise ;  but  far  more  destructive 
were  the  wars  and  taxes  ^  of  the  Grand  Monarch.  The  only 
wonder  is  that  France  bore  the  drain  of  men  and  money  so 
well. 

The  English,  then,  had  a  more  promising  na\y  and  a  more 
prosperous  trade  than  the  French,  and  w^re  therefore  able  to 
gain  control  of  the  seas  and  to  bear  the  expense  of  war. 

In  general  colonial  policy  France  seemed  decidedly  superior. 
Louis  XIV  had  taken  over  the  whole  of  "New  France"  as  a 
royal  pro\ance,  and  the  French  could  present  a  united   front 

^  In  order  to  obtain  money  for  his  court,  diplomacy,  and  wars,  Louis  XIV  not 
only  increased  taxes  but  debased  tlie  coinage.  Particularly  unfortunate,  economi- 
cally, was  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  (1685),  as  a  result  of  which  some 
50,000  of  the  most  industrious  and  thrifty  citizens  of  France  fled  to  increase  the 
industry  of  England,  Holland,  and  Brandenburg  (Prussia). 

X 


3o6  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

against  the  divided  and  discordant  English  colonies.  Under 
Colbert  the  number  of  French  colonists  in  America  increased 
Compara-  3°°  P^^  ^^^^  ^^^  twenty  years.  Moreover  the  French, 
tive  Colonial  both  in  India  and  in  America,  were  almost  uniformly 
Francr  °^  successful  in  gaining  the  friendship  and  trust  of  the 
and  Eng-  natives,  whereas,  at  least  with  most  of  the  redmen, 
^^^  the  EngHsh  were  constantly  at  war. 

The  English,  however,  had  a  great  advantage  in  the  number 
of  colonists.  The  population  of  France,  held  in  check  by  wars, 
did  not  naturally  overflow  to  America;  and  the  Huguenots, 
persecuted  in  the  mother  country,  were  not  allowed  to  emigrate 
to  New  France,  lest  their  presence  might  impede  the  missionary 
labors  of  the  Jesuits  among  the  Indians.^  England  was  more 
fortunate  in  that  her  Puritan,  Quaker,  and  Catholic  exiles  went 
to  her  colonies  rather  than  to  foreign  lands.  The  English  colo- 
nists, less  under  the  direct  protection  of  the  mother  country, 
learned  to  defend  themselves  against  the  Indians,  and  were 
better  able  to  help  the  mother  country  against  their  common 
foe,  the  French. 

Taken  all  in  all,  the  situation  was  favorable  to  Great  Britain. 
As  long  as  French  monarchs  wasted  the  resources  of  France  in 
Europe,  they  could  scarcely  hope  to  cope  with  the  superior  navy, 
the  thriving  commerce,  and  the  more  populous  colonies,  of  their 
ancient  enemies. 

PRELIMINARY  ENCOUNTERS,    1689-1748 

Colonial  and  commercial  rivalry  could  hardly  bring  France 
and  Great  Britain  to  blows  while  the  Stuart  kings  looked  to 
War  of  the  Louis  XIV  for  friendly  aid  in  the  erection  of  absolut- 
League  of  ism  and  the  reinstatement  of  Catholicism  in  England. 
Augs  urg  rpj^^  Revolution  of  1689,  which  we  have  already  dis- 
cussed 2  in  its  political  significance,  was  important  in  its  bear- 
ing on  foreign  relations,  for  it  placed  on  the  English  throne  the 

^  The  statement  is  frequently  made  that  the  "paternalism"  or  fatherly  care 
\vith  which  Richelieu  and  Colbert  made  regulations  for  the  colonies  was  responsible 
for  the  paucity  of  colonists  and  the  discouragement  of  colonial  industry.  This, 
however,  will  be  taken  with  considerable  reservation  when  it  is  remembered  that 
England  attempted  to  prevent  the  growth  of  such  industries  in  her  colonies  as  might 
compete  with  those  at  home. 

2  See  above,  pp.  286  ff. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  307 

arch-enemy  of  France,  William  III,  whose  chief  concern  was  the 
protection  of  his  ancestral  possessions  —  the  Dutch  Netherlands 
—  against  the  encroachments  of  Louis  XIV.  The  support 
given  by  the  latter  to  the  pretensions  of  James  II  was  a  second 
cause  of  war.  In  an  earher  chapter  ^  we  have  seen  how  interna- 
tional relations  in  1689  led  to  the  juncture  of  England  and 
Holland  with  the  League  of  Augsburg,  which  included  the 
emperor,  the  kings  of  Spain  and  Sweden,  and  the  electors  of 
Bavaria,  Saxony,  and  the  Palatinate;  and  how  the  resulting 
War  of  the  League  of  Augsburg  was  waged  in  Europe  from  1689 
to  1697.  It  was  during  that  struggle,  it  will  be  remembered, 
that  King  William  finally  defeated  James  II  and  the  latter's 
French  and  Irish  alHes  in  the  battle  of  the  Boyne  (1690).  It 
was  also  during  that  struggle  that  the  French  navy,  though 
successful  against  combined  Dutch  and  EngHsh  squadrons  off 
Beachy  Head  (1690),  was  decisively  beaten  by  the  English  in 
a  three-day  battle  near  La  Hogue  (1692). 

The  War  of  the  League  of  Augsburg  had  its  counterpart  in 
the  American   "King  William's  War,"   of  which  two  aspects 
should  be  noted.     In  the  first  place,  the  New  Eng- 
land  colonists  aided  in   the   capture   (1690)    of  the  William's 
French  fortress  of  Port  Royal  in  Acadia  (Nova  Scotia)   ^^^^  ^^^9- 
and  in  an  inconsequential  attack  on  Quebec.     In  the 
second  place,  we  must  notice  the  role  of  the  Indians.     As  early 
as  1670,  Roger  Williams,  a  famous  New  England  preacher,  had 
declared,  "the  French  and  Romish  Jesuits,  the  firebrands  of  the 
world,  for  their  godbelly  sake,  are  kindling  at  our  back  in  this 
country  their  hellish  fires  with  all  the  natives  of  this  country." 
The  outbreak  of  King  WilHam's  War  was  a  signal  for  the  kindling 
of  fires  more  to  be  feared  than  those  imagined  by  the  good  di\ane ; 
the  burning  of  Dover  (N.  H.),  Schenectady  (N.  Y.),  and  Groton 
(Mass.)  by  the  red  allies  of  the  French  governor.  Count  Fron- 
tenac,  earned  the  latter  the  lasting  hatred  of  the  "Yankees." 

The  contest  was  interrupted  rather  than  settled  by  Treaty  of 
the  colorless  treaty  of  Ryswick  (1697),  according  to  Ryswick, 
which  Louis  XIV  promised  not  to  question  William's  ^  ^^ 
right  to  the  English  throne,  and  all  colonial  conquests,  includ- 
ing Port  Royal,  were  restored, 

^  See  above,  pp.  247  ff. 


3o8  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Only  five  years  later  Europe  was  plunged  into  the  long  War 
of  the  Spanish  Succession  (1702-1713).  King  William  and  the 
War  of  the  Habsburg  emperor  with  other  European  princes 
Spanish  formed  a  Grand  Alliance  to  prevent  Louis'  grandson 
uccession  pj-^jijp  from  inheriting  the  Spanish  crowns.  For  if 
France  and  Spain  were  united  under  the  Bourbon  family,  their 
armies  would  overawe  Europe ;  their  united  colonial  empires 
would  surround  and  perhaps  engulf  the  British  colonies;  their 
combined  navies  might  drive  the  British  from  the  seas.  Further- 
more, the  English  were  angered  when  Louis  XIV,  upon  the  death 
of  James  II  (1701),  openly  recognized  the  Catholic  son  of  the 
exiled  royal  Stuart  as  "James  III,"  king  of  Great  Britain. 

While  the  duke  of  Marlborough  and  Prince  Eugene  were 
winning  great  victories  in  Europe,^  the  British  colonists  in 
Queen  America  were  fighting  "Queen  Anne's  War"  against 

Anne's  War,  the  French.  Again  the  French  sent  Indians  to  destroy 
1702-1713  ]\^g^  England  villages,  and  again  the  English  retaliated 
by  attacking  Port  Royal  and  Quebec.  After  withstanding  two  un- 
successful assaults.  Port  Royal  fell  in  17 10  and  left  Acadia  open 
to  the  British.  In  the  following  year  a  fleet  of  nine  war  vessels 
and  sixty  transports  carried  twelve  thousand  Britishers  to  at- 
tack Quebec,  while  an  army  of  2300  moved  on  Montreal  by  way 
of  Lake  Champlain ;  but  both  expeditions  failed  of  their  object. 

On  the  high  seas,  as  well  as  in  America  and  in  Europe,  the 
British  won  fresh  laurels.  It  was  during  Queen  Anne's  War 
that  the  British  navy,  sometimes  with  the  valuable  aid  of  the 
Dutch,  played  an  important  part  in  defeating  the  French  fleet 
in  the  Mediterranean  and  driving  French  privateers  from  the 
sea,  in  besieging  and  capturing  Gibraltar,  in  seizing  a  rich  squad- 
ron of  Spanish  treasure  ships  near  Cartagena,  and  in  terrorizing 
the  French  West  Indies. 

The  main  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  which  terminated 
this  stage  of  the  conflict,  in  so  far  as  they  affected  the  colonial 
Treaty  of  situation,^  were  as  follows :  (i)  The  French  Bourbons 
Utrecht,  were  allowed  to  become  the  reigning  family  in  Spain, 
^^^^  and  though  the  proviso  was  inserted  that  the  crowns 

of  France  and  Spain  should  never  be  united,  nevertheless  so  lojig 
as  Bourbons  reigned  in  both  countries,  the  colonies  of  Spain  and 

^  See  above,  pp.  249  ff.  ^  pgj.  ^he  European  settlement,  see  above,  pp.  253  f . 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALR^'  309 

France  might  almost  be  regarded  as  one  immense  Bourbon  em- 
pire.    (2)  Great  Britain  was  confirmed  in  possession  of  Acadia/ 
which  was  rechristencd  Nova  Scotia,  and    France   abandoned 
her  claims  to  Hudson  Bay,  Newfoundland,  and   the  island  of 
St.  Kitts  in  the  West  Indies.     (3)  Great  Britain  secured  from 
Spain  the  cession  of  the  island  of  Minorca  and  the  rocky  strong- 
hold   of    Gibraltar  —  bulwarks    of    Mediterranean    commerce. 
(4)  Of  more  immediate  value  to  Great  Britain  was  the  trade 
concession,  called  the  Asiento,  made  by  Spain  (1713).     Prior 
to  the  Asiento,  the  British  had  been  forbidden  to  trade  with  the 
Spanish  possessions  in  America,  and  the  French  had  jj^g 
monopolized  the  sale  of  slaves  to  the  Spanish  colonies.   Asiento, 
The  Asiento,  however,  allowed  Great  Britain  exclusive   ^'^^^ 
right  to  supply  Spanish  America  with  negro  slaves,  at  the  rate 
of  4800  a  year,  for  thirty  years.     They  were  still  forbidden  to 
sell  other  commodities  in    the  domains  of   the  Spanish  king, 
except  that  once  a  year  one  British  ship  of  five  hundred  tons 
burden  might  visit  Porto  Bello  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  for 
purposes  of  general  trade.     For  almost  three  decades  after  the 
peace  of  Utrecht,  the  smoldering  colonial  jealousies 
were  not  allowed  to  break  forth  into  the  flame  of  open  lude  of 
war.     During  the  interval,  however,  British  ambitions  Peace, 
were  coming  more  and  more  obviously  into  conflict 
with  the  claims  of  Spain  and  France  in  America,  and  with  those 
of  France  in  India. 

In  spite  of  her  losses  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  France  still 
held  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  with  Cape  Breton  Island  defend- 
ing its  mouth ;    her  fishermen  still  had  special  privi-  ^^^^^^ 
leges  on  the  Newfoundland  banks ;  her  islands  in  the  Aggressive- 
West  Indies  flourished  under  greater  freedom  of  trade  ^^^^^^^^ 
than  that  enjoyed  by  the  EngHsh ;   and  her  pioneers 
were  occupying  the  vast  vafley  of  the  Mississippi.     Moreover, 
in  preparing  for  the  next  stage  of  the  conflict,  France  displayed 
astonishing    energy.     Fort    Louisburg    was    erected    on    Cape 
Breton  Island  to  command  the  entrance  to  the  Gulf  of  St.  Law- 
rence.    A  long  series  of  fortifications  was  constructed  to  stake 
out  and  guarantee  the  French  claims.     From  Crown  Point  on 

1  A  dispute  later  arose  whether,  as  the  British  claimed,  "Acadia"  included 
Cape  Breton  Island. 


3IO  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

Lake  Champlain,  the  line  was  carried  westward  by  Fort  Niagara, 
Fort  Detroit,  Sault  Sainte  Marie,  on  to  Lake  Winnipeg  and  even 
beyond ;  other  forts  commanded  the  Wabash  and  Ilhnois  rivers, 
and  followed  the  Mississippi  down  to  the  Gulf.^  Settlements 
were  made  at  Mobile  (1702)  and  at  New  Orleans  (17 18),  and 
British  sailors  were  given  to  understand  that  the  Mississippi  was 
French  property.  The  governors  of  British  colonies  had  ample 
cause  for  alarm. 

In  India,  likewise,  the  French  were  too  enterprising  to  be 
good  neighbors.  Under  the  leadership  of  a  wonderfully  able 
governor-general,  Dupleix,  who  was  appointed  in  1741, 
Aggressive-  ^^^y  Were  prospering  and  were  extending  their  in- 
nessin  fluence  in  the    effete    empire  of    the  Great  Mogul. 

Dupleix  Dupleix  exhibited  a  restless  ambition ;  he  began  to 
interfere  in  native  politics  and  to  assume  the  pom- 
pous bearing,  gorgeous  apparel,  and  proud  titles  of  a  native 
prince.  He  conceived  the  idea  of  augmenting  his  slender  gar- 
risons of  Europeans  with  "sepoys,"  or  carefully  drilled  natives, 
and  fortified  his  capital,  Pondicherry,  as  if  for  war. 

To  the  dangerous  rivalry  between  British  and  French  colo- 
nists and  traders  in  America  and  in  India,  during  the  thirty 
Trade  years  which  followed  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  was  added 

Disputes  the  continuous  bickering  which  grew  out  of  the  Asiento 
Spain  and  Concluded  in  17 13  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain. 
Great  Spaniards  complained  of  British  smugglers  and  pro- 

"^^'^  tested    with    justice    that    the    British    outrageously 

abused  their  special  privilege  by  keeping  the  single  stipulated 
vessel  in  the  harbor  of  Porto  Bello  and  refilling  it  at  night  from 
other  ships.  On  the  other  hand,  British  merchants  resented 
their  general  exclusion  from  Spanish  markets  and  recited  to  will- 
ing listeners  at  home  the  tale  of  their  grievances  against  the 
Spanish  authorities.  Of  such  tales  the  most  notorious  was  that 
of  a  certain  Captain  Robert  Jenkins,  who  with  dramatic  detail 
told  how  the  bloody  Spaniards  had  attacked  his  good  ship, 
plundered  it,  and  in  the  fray  cut  off  one  of  his  ears,  and  to  prove 
his  story  he  is  said  to  have  produced  a  box  containing  what  pur- 
ported to  be  the  ear  in  question.     In  the  face  of  the  popular 

^  By  the  year  1750  there  were  over  sixty  French  forts  between  Montreal  and 
New  Orleans. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  311 

excitement  aroused  in  England  by  this  and  similar  incidents,  Sir 
Robert  Walpole,  the  peace-loving  prime  minister,  was  unable  to 
restrain  his  fellow-countr^Tnen  from  declaring  war  against  Spain. 

It  was  in  1739  that  the  commercial  and  colonial  warfare  was 
thus  resumed,  —  on  this  occasion  involving  at  the  outset  only 
Spain  and  Great  Britain,  —  in  a  curious  struggle  com-  ^j^^  «  y^^^. 
monly  referred  to  as  the  War  of  Jenkins's  Ear.  A  of  Jenkins's 
British  fleet  captured  Porto  Bello,  but  failed  to  take  ^"'"  '"^^^ 
Cartagena.  In  North  America  the  war  was  carried  on  fruit- 
lessly by  James  Oglethorpe,  who  had  recently  (1733)  founded 
the  English  colony  of  "Georgia"  ^  to  the  south  of  the  Carolinas, 
in  territory  claimed  by  the  Spanish  colony  of  Florida. 

The  War  of  Jenkins's  Ear  proved  but  an  introduction  to  the 
resumption  of  hostilities  on  a  large  scale  between  France  and 
Great  Britain.     In  a  later  chapter  ^  it  is  explained  i^^^.  ^^  ^j^g 
how  in  1 740  the  War  of  the  Austrian  Succession  broke  Austrian 
out  on  the  continent  of  Europe  —  a  war  stubbornly     "^^=^^^1°° 
fought  for  eight  years,  and  a  war  in  which  Great  Britain  entered 
the  lists  for  Maria  Theresa  of  Austria  against  France  King 
and  Prussia  and  other  states.     And  the  European  con-  wa7%44- 
flict  was  naturally  reflected  in  "King  George's  War"   1748 
(i 744-1 748)  in  America,  and  in  simultaneous  hostilities  in  India. 

The  only  remarkable  incident  of  King  George's  War  was  the 
capture  of  Louisburg  (1745)  by  Colonel  William  Pepperell  of 
New  Hampshire  with  a  force  of  British  colonists,  who  were  sorely 
disappointed  when,  in  1748,  the  captured  fortress  was  returned 
to  France  by  the  treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle.  The  war  in  India 
was  similarly  indecisive.  In  1746  a  French  squadron  easily 
captured  the  British  post  at  Madras;  other  British  posts  were 
attacked,  and  Dupleix  defeated  the  nawab  of  the  Carnatic,  who 
would  have  punished  him  for  violating  Indian  peace  and 
neutrality. 

The  tables  were  turned  by  the  arrival  of  a  British  fleet  in 
1748,  which  laid  siege  to  Dupleix  in    Pondicherry. 
At  this  juncture,  news  arrived  that  Great  Britain  and  of  Aixia- 
France  had  concluded  the  treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  ChapeUe, 
(1748),  whereby  all  conquests,  including  Madras  and 

^  So  named  in  honor  of  the  then  reigning  King  George  II  (1727-1760). 
2  See  below,  pp.  354  S. 


312  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Loiiisburg,  were  to  be  restored.  So  far  as  Spain  was  concerned, 
Great  Britain  in  1750  renounced  the  privileges  of  the  Asiento 
in  return  for  a  money  payment  of  £100,000. 

THE  TRIUMPH  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN:    THE  SEVEN  YEARS' 
WAR,   1756-1763 

Up  to  this  point,  the  wars  had  been  generally  indecisive, 
although  Great  Britain  had  gained  Hudson  Bay,  Newfound- 
Questions  land,  and  Nova  Scotia  by  the  peace  of  Utrecht  (17 13). 
at  Issue  British  naval  power,  too,  was  undoubtedly  in  the 
in  1750  ascendancy.     But  two  great  questions  were  still  un- 

answered. Should  .France  be  allowed  to  make  good  her  claim 
to  the  Mississippi  valley  and  possibly  to  drive  the  British  from 
their  slender  foothold  on  the  coast  of  America?  Should  Du- 
pleix,  wily  diplomat  as  he  was,  be  allowed  to  make  India  a  French 
empire?  To  these  major  disputes  was  added  a  minor  quarrel 
over  the  boundary  of  Nova  Scotia,  which,  it  will  be  remembered, 
had  been  ceded  to  Great  Britain  in  17 13.  Such  questions  could 
be  decided  only  by  the  crushing  defeat  of  one  nation,  and  that 
defeat  France  was  to  suffer  in  the  years  between  1754  and  1763. 
„,  ,,    .,      Her  loss  was  fourfold  :   (i)  Her  European  armues  were 

World-wide  .  ^    ^  .      '■ 

Extent  of  defeated  in  Germany  by  Frederick  the  Great,  who 
«ie  Seven  ^gg  aided  by  English  gold,  in  the  Seven  Years'  War 
(1756-1763).^  (2)  At  the  same  time  her  naval  power 
was  almost  annihilated  by  the  British,  whose  war  vessels  and 
privateers  conquered  most  of  the  French  West  Indies  and  almost 
swept  French  commerce  from  the  seas.  (3)  In  India,  the  machi- 
nations of  Dupleix  were  foiled  by  the  equally  astute  but  more 
martial  Clive.  (4)  In  America,  the  "French  and  Indian  War" 
(i 754-1 763)  dispelled  the  dream  of  a  New  France  across  the 
Atlantic.     We  shall  first  consider  the  war  in  the  New  World. 

The  immediate  cause  of  the  French  and  Indian  War  was  a 
contest  for  the  possession  of  the  Ohio  valley.  The  English  had 
already  organized  an  Ohio  Company  (1749)  for  colonization  of 
the  valley,  but  they  did  not  fully  realize  the  pressing  need  of 
action  until  the  French  had  begun  the  construction  of  a  line 
of  forts  in  western  Pennsylvania  —  Fort  Presqu'   Isle    (Erie), 

'  For  an  account  of  the  European  aspects  of  this  struggle,  see  below,  pp.  358  ff. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  313 

Fort  Le   Boeuf    (Waterford) ,    and    Fort    Venango    (Franklin). 
The  most  important  position  —  the  junction  of   the   Monon- 
gahela  and  Allegheny  rivers  —  being  still  unoccupied, 
the  Ohio  Company,  early  in  1754,  sent  a  small  force  American 
to  seize  and  fortify  it.     The  French,  however,  were  ^^^?,®  °^ 

.,  -11  11*^^  Seven 

not  to   be  so   easily  outwitted;    they  captured    the  Years' War: 
newlv  built  fort  with  its  handful  of  defenders,  en-  ^^^ 

.  French 

larged  it,  and  christened  it  Fort  Duquesne  m  honor  and  Indian" 
of  the  governor  of  Canada.     Soon  afterward  a  young  ^^^  ^754- 
\^irginian,  George  Washington  by  name,  arrived  on 
the  scene  with  four  hundred  men,  too  late   to   reenforce   the 
Enghsh  fort-builders,  and  he  also  was  defeated  on  4  July,  1754. 

Hope  was  revived,  however,  in  1755  when  the  British  General 
Braddock  arrived  with  a  regular  army  and  an  ambitious  plan  to 
attack  the  French  in  three  places  —  Crown  Point  (on  Lake 
Champlain),  Fort  Niagara,  and  Fort  Duquesne.  Against  the 
last-named  fort  he  himself  led  a  mixed  force  of  British  regulars 
and  colonial  militia,  and  so  incautiously  did  he  advance  that 
presently  he  fell  into  an  ambush.  From  behind  trees  and  rocks 
the  Frenchmen  and  redskins  peppered  the  surprised  redcoats. 
The  "seasoned"  veterans  of  European  battlefields  were  defeated, 
and  might  have  been  annihilated  but  for  the  timely  aid  of  a  few 
*'raw"  colonial  militiamen,  who  knew  how  to  shoot  straight 
from  behind  trees.  The  expedition  against  Niagara  also  failed 
of  its  object  but  entailed  no  such  disaster.  Failing  to  take 
Crown  Point,  the  Enghsh  built  Forts  Edward  and  William  Henry 
on  Lake  George,  while  the  French  constructed  the  famous  Fort 
Ticonderoga.^ 

The  gloom  which  gathered  about  British  fortunes  seemed  to 

increase  during  the  years  1756  and  1757.     Great  Britain's  most 

valuable  ally,   Frederick  the   Great  of  Prussia,  was  ,,    ^   , 
■'  Montcalm 

defeated  in  Europe ;    an  English  squadron  had  been 
sadly  defeated  in  the  Mediterranean ;   the  French  had  captured 
the  island  of  Minorca ;    and  a  British    attack  on  the  French 
fortress  of  Louisburg  had  failed.     To  the  French  in  America, 

^  This  same  year,  1755,  so  unfortunate  for  the  English,  was  a  cruel  year  for  the 
French  settlers  in  Nova  Scotia ;  like  so  many  cattle,  seven  thousand  of  them  were 
packed  into  English  vessels  and  shipped  to  various  parts  of  North  America.  The 
English  feared  their  possible  disloyalty. 


314  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  year  1756  brought  Montcalm  and  continued  success.  The 
Marquis  de  Montcalm  (17 12-1759)  had  learned  the  art  of  war 
on  European  battlefields,  but  he  readily  adapted  himself  to  new 
conditions,  and  proved  to  be  an  able  commander  of  the  French 
and  Indian  forces  in  the  New  World.  The  Enghsh  fort  of 
Oswego  on  Lake  Ontario,  and  Fort  William  Henry  on  Lake 
George,  were  captured,  and  all  the  campaigns  projected  by  the 
English  were  foiled.  .  • 

In  1757,  however,  new  vigor  was  infused  into  the  war  on  the 
part  of  the  British,  largely  by  reason  of  the  entrance  of  William 
Pitt  (the  Elder)  into  the  cabinet.  Pitt  was  determined  to 
arouse  all  British  subjects  to  fight  for  their  country.  Stirred 
with  martial  enthusiasm,  colonial  volunteers  now  joined  with 
British  regulars  to  provide  a  force  of  about  50,000  men  for 
simultaneous  attacks  on  four  important  French  posts  in  America 
—  Louisburg,  Ticonderoga,  Niagara,  and  Duquesne.  The  suc- 
cess of  the  attack  on  Louisburg  (1758)  was  insured  by  the  sup- 
port of  a  strong  British  squadron ;  Fort  Duquesne  was  taken 
and  renamed  Fort  Pitt  ^  (1758);  Ticonderoga  repulsed  one  ex- 
pedition (1758)  but  surrendered  on  26  July,  1759,  one  day  after 
the  capture  of  Fort  Niagara  by  the  British. 

Not  content  with  the  capture  of  the  menacing  French  fron- 
tier forts,  the  British  next  aimed  at  the  central  strongholds  of  the 
French.  While  one  army  marched  up  the  Hudson 
valley  to  attack  Montreal,  General  Wolfe,  in  com- 
mand of  another  army  of  7000,  and  accompanied  by  a  strong 
fleet,  moved  up  the  St.  Lawrence  against  Quebec.  An  inordi- 
nate thirst  for  mihtary  glory  had  been  Wolfe's  heritage  from  his 
father,  himself  a  general.  An  ensign  at  fourteen,  Wolfe  had  be- 
come an  officer  in  active  service  while  still  in  his  teens,  had  com- 
manded a  detachment  in  the  attack  on  Louisburg  in  1758,  and 
now  at  the  age  of  thirty-three  was  charged  with  the  capture  of 
Quebec,  a  natural  stronghold,  defended  by  the  redoubtable 
Montcalm.  The  task  seemed  impossible  ;  weeks  were  wasted  in 
futile  efforts ;  sickness  and  apparent  defeat  weighed  heavily  on 
the  young  commander.  With  the  energy  of  despair  he  fastened 
at  last  upon  a  daring  idea.  Thirty-six  hundred  of  his  men  were 
ferried  in  the  dead  of  night  to  a  point  above  the  city  where  his 

^  Whence  the  name  of  the  modern  city  of  Pittsburgh. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  315 

soldiers  might  scramble  through  bushes  and  over  rocks  up  a 
precipitous  path  to  a  high  plain  —  the  Plains  of  Abraham  — 
commanding  the  towTi. 

Wolfe's  presence  on  the  heights  was  revealed  at  daybreak  on 
13  September,  1759,  and  Montcalm  hastened  to  repel  the  attack. 
For  a  time  it  seemed  as  if  Wolfe's  force  would  be  over-  „  .^.  ^ 

British 

powered,  but  a  well-directed  volley  and  an  impetuous  victory  at 

charge  threw  the  French  lines  into  disorder.     In  the  Quebec, 

•       1759 
moment   of   victory,    General   Wolfe,    already   twice 

wounded,  received  a  musket-ball  in  the  breast.     His  death  was 

made  happy  by  the  news  of  success,  but  no  such  exultation  filled 

the  heart  of  the  mortally  wounded  Montcalm,  dying  in  the 

bitterness  of  defeat. 

Quebec  surrendered  a  few  days  later.  It  was  the  beginning 
of  the  end  of  the  French  colonial  empire  in  America.  All  hope 
was  lost  when,  in  October,  1759,  a  great  armada,  ready  to  em- 
bark against  England,  was  destroyed  in  Quiberon  Bay  by  Admiral 
Hawke.  In  1760  Montreal  fell  and  the  British  completed  the 
conquest  of  New  France,  at  the  very  time  when  the  last  vestiges 
of  French  power  were  disappearing  in  India. 

In  his  extremity,  Louis  XV  of  France  secured  the  aid  of  his 
Bourbon  kinsman,  the  king  of  Spain,  against  England, 
but  Spain  was  a  worthless  ally,  and  in  1762  British  interven- 
squadrons  captured  Cuba  and  the  Philippine  Islands  ^on  of 
as  well  as  the  French  possessions  in  the  West  Indies. 

Let  us  now  turn  back  and  see  how  the  loss  of  New  France 
was    paralleled    by    French    defeat    in    the    contest    for    the 
vastly  more  populous  and  opulent  empire  of  India. 
The  Mogul  Empire,  to  which  reference  has  already  the  Seven 
been  made,  had  been  rapidly  falling  to  pieces  through-  X^j""^'.  ^" 
out  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century.    The  rulers 
or  nawabs  (nabobs)  of  the  Deccan,  of  Bengal,  and  of  Oudh  had 
become  semi -independent  princes.     In  a  time  when  conspiracy 
and  intrigue  were  common  avenues  to  power,  the  French  gover- 
nor, Dupleix,  had  conceived  the  idea  of  making  himself  continued 
the  poHtical  leader  of  India,  and  in  pursuit  of  his  goal.  Activity  of 
as  we  have  seen,  he  had  affected  Oriental  magnificence     "^  ®^ 
and  grandiloquent  titles,  had  formed  alliances  with  half  the 
neighboring  native  magnates,  had  fortified  Pondicherry,   and 


3i6  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

begun  the  enrollment  and  organization  of  his  sepoy  army.  In  1750 
he  succeeded  in  overthrowing  the  nawab  of  the  Carnatic  ^  and  in 
establishing  a  pretender  whom  he  could  dominate  more  easily. 

The  hopes  of  the  experienced  and  crafty  Dupleix  were  frus- 
trated, however,  by  a  young  man  of  twenty-seven  —  Robert 
Robert  Clive.      At  the  age  of  eighteen,  Clive  had  entered  the 

cuve  employ  of  the  English  East  India  Company  as  a  clerk 

at  Madras.  His  restless  and  discontented  spirit  found  relief,  at 
times,  in  omnivorous  reading ;  at  other  times  he  grew  despond- 
ent. More  than  once  he  planned  to  take  his  own  life.  During 
the  War  of  the  Austrian  Succession,  he  had  resigned  his  civil 
post  and  entered  the  army.  The  hazards  of  military  life  were 
more  to  his  liking,  and  he  soon  gave  abundant  evidence  of  ability. 
After  the  peace  of  1748  he  had  returned  to  civil  life,  but  in  1751 
he  came  forward  with  a  bold  scheme  for  attacking  Arcot,  the 
capital  of  the  Carnatic,  and  overthrowing  the  upstart  nawab 
who  was  supported  by  Dupleix.  Clive  could  muster  only  some 
two  hundred  Europeans  and  three  hundred  sepoys,  but  this 
slender  force,  infused  with  the  daring  and  irresistible  determina- 
tion of  the  young  leader,  sufficed  to  seize  and  hold  the  citadel  of 
Arcot  against  thousands  of  assailants.  With  the  aid  of  native 
and  British  reenforcements,  the  hero  of  Arcot  further  defeated 
the  pretender;  and,  in  1754,  the  French  had  to  ac- 
FaUure  knowledge  their  failure    in   the  Carnatic  and  with- 

mthe  draw  support  from  their  vanquished  protege.     Du- 

pleix was  recalled  to  France  in  disgrace ;  and  the 
British  were  left  to  enjoy  the  favor  of  the  nawab  who  owed  his 
throne  to  Clive. 

Clive's  next  work  was  in  Bengal.  In  1756  the  young  nawab 
of  Bengal,  Suraj-ud-Dowlah  by  name,  seized  the  English  fort 
at  Calcutta  and  locked  146  Englishmen  overnight  in  a  stifling 
prison  —  the  ''Black  Hole"  of  Calcutta  —  from  which  only 
twenty-three  emerged  alive  the  next  morning.  Clive,  hastening 
from  Madras,  chastised  Suraj  for  this  atrocity,  and  forced  him 
to  give  up  Calcutta.  And  since  by  this  time  Great  Britain  and 
France  were  openly  at  war,  Clive  did  not  hesitate  to  capture  the 
near-by  French  post  of  Chandarnagar.     His  next  move  was  to 

^  The  province  in  India  which  includes  Madras  and  Pondicherry  and  has  its 
capital  at  Arcot. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  317 

give  active  aid  to  a  certain  Mir  Jafir,  a  pretender  to  the  throne 
of    the    unfriendly    Suraj-ud-Dowlah.     The    French    naturally 
took  sides  with  Suraj  against  Chve.     In  1757   Clive  drew  up 
1 100  Europeans,  2100  sepoys,  and  nine  cannon  in  a 
grove  of  mango  trees  at  Plassey,  a  few  miles  south  of 
the  city  of  JNIurshidabad,  and  there  attacked  Suraj,  who,  with 
an  army  of  68,000  native  troops  and  with  French  artillerymen 
to  work  his  lifty-three  cannon,   anticipated  an  easy  victory. 
The  outcome  was  a  brilliant  victory  for  Clive,  as  overwhelming 
as  it  was  unexpected.     The  British  candidate  forthwith  became 
nawab  of  Bengal  and'as  token  of  his  indebtedness  he  British 
paid  over  £1,500,000  to  the  English  East  India  Com-  Success  in 
pany,  and  made  Clive  a  rich  man.     The  British  were     ^°^ 
henceforth  dominant  in  Bengal.     The  capture  of  Masulipatam 
in  1758,  the  defeat  of  the  French  at  Wandewash,  between  Madras 
and  Pondicherry,  and  the  successful  siege  of  Pondicherry  in  1761, 
finally  established   the  British  as  masters  of  all   the  coveted 
eastern  coast  of  India. 

The  fall  of  Quebec  (1759)  and  of  Pondicherry  (1761)  prac- 
tically decided  the  issue  of  the  colonial  struggle,  but  the  war 
dragged  on  until,  in  1763,  France,  Spain,  and  Great  Treaty  of 
Britain  concluded  the  peace  of  Paris.  Of  her  Ameri-  Paris, 
can  possessions  France  retained  only  two  insignificant  ^^  ^ 
islands  on  the  Newfoundland  coast, ^  a  few  islands  in  the  West 
Indies,'-  and  a  foothold  in  Guiana  in  South  America.  Great 
Britain  received  from  France  the  whole  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
valley  and  all  the  territory  east  of  the  Mississippi  River,  together 
with  the  island  of  Grenada  in  the  West  Indies ;  and  from  Spain, 
Great  Britain  secured  Florida.  Beyond  the  surrender  of  the 
sparsely  settled  territory  of  Florida,  Spain  suffered  no  loss,  for 
Cubg.  and  the  Phihppines  were  restored  to  her,  and  France  gave 
her  western  Louisiana,  that  is,  the  western  half  of  the  Mississippi 
valley.  The  French  were  allowed  to  return  to  their  old  posts  in 
India,  but  were  not  to  build  forts  or  to  maintain  troops  in  Ben- 
gal. In  other  words,  the  French  returned  to  India  as  traders  but 
not  as  empire  builders.^ 

^  St.  Pierre  and  Miquelon.  ^  Including  Guadeloupe  and  Martinique. 

^  During  the  war,  the  French  posts  in  Africa  had  been  taken,  and  now  Goree 
was  returned  while  the  mouth  of  the  Senegal  River  was  retained  by  the  British. 


3i8  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

Let  us  attempt  to  summarize  the  chief  results  of  the  war. 

In  the  first  place,  Great  Britain  preserved  half  of  what  was  later 

to  constitute  the  United  States,  and  gained  Canada 

Significance  ,  ,  .      -^     ..  .     "      .  ,  .  ^ 

of  the  and  an  ascendancy  m  India  —  empires  wider,  richer. 

Seven  ^j^^j  more  diverse  than  those  of  a  Caesar  or  an  Alex- 

Ycsrs'  vt3J" 

to  Great  ander.  Henceforth  Great  Britain  was  indisputably 
Britain  and  ^]^g  preeminent  colonizing  country  —  a  nation  upon 
whose  domains  the  sun  never  set.  It  meant  that 
the  English  language  was  to  spread  as  no  other  language,  until 
to-day  one  hundred  and  sixty  millions  of  people  use  the  tongue 
which  in  the  fifteenth  century  was  spoken  by  hardly  five  millions. 

Secondly,  even  more  important  than  this  vast  land  empire 
was  the  dominion  of  the  sea  which  Great  Britain  acquired,  for 
from  the  series  of  wars  just  considered,  and  especially  from  the 
last,  dates  the  maritime  supremacy  of  England.  Since  then  her 
commerce,  protected  and  advertised  by  the  most  powerful  navy 
in  the  world,  has  mounted  by  leaps  and  bounds,  so  that  now 
half  the  vessels  which  sail  the  seas  bear  at  their  masthead  the 
Union  Jack.  From  her  dominions  beyond  the  oceans  and  from 
her  ships  upon  the  seas  Great  Britain  drew  power  and  prestige ; 
British  merchants  acquired  opulence  with  resulting  social  and 
political  importance  to  themselves  and  to  their  country,  and 
British  manufactures  received  that  stimulation  which  prepared 
the  way  for  the  Industrial  Revolution  of  the  late  eighteenth  and 
early  nineteenth  centuries. 

Thirdly,  the  gains  of  Great  Britain  were  at  least  the  tem- 
porary ruin  of  her  rival.  Not  without  reluctance  did  France 
abandon  her  colonial  ambitions,  but  nearly  a  century  was  to 
elapse  after  the  treaty  of  Paris  before  the  French  should  seriously 
reenter  the  race  for  the  upbuilding  of  world  empire.  Nor  was 
France  without  a  desire  for  revenge,  which  was  subsequently 
made  manifest  in  her  alliance  with  Britain's  rebellious  American 
colonies  in  1778.  But  French  naval  power  had  suffered  a  blow 
from  which  it  was  difificult  to  recover,^  and  much  of  her  com- 
merce was  irretrievably  lost.     If  toward  the  close  of  the  eight- 

'  Yet  between  1763  and  1778  the  French  made  heroic  and  expensive  efforts 
to  rebuild  their  navy.  And  as  we  shall  presently  see  in  studying  the  general  war 
which  accompanied  the  American  revolt,  France  attempted  in  vain  to  reverse  the 
main  result  of  the  Seven  Years'  War. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIV.\LRY  319 

eenth  century  bankruptcy  was  to  threaten  the  Bourbon  court 
and  government  at  \^ersaillcs,  and  if  at  the  opening  of  the  next 
century,  British  sea-power  was  to  undermine  Napoleon's  empire, 
it  was  in  no  slight  degree  the  result  in  either  case  of  the  Seven 
Years'  disaster. 

India  and  America  were  lost  to  France.  Her  trade  in  India 
soon  dwindled  into  insignificance  before  the  powerful  and  wealthy 
British  East  India  Company.  "French  India"  to-day  consists 
of  Pondicherry,  Karikal,  Yanaon,  Mahe,  and  Chandarnagar  — • 
196  square  miles  in  all,  —  while  the  Indian  Empire  of  Britain 
spreads  over  an  area  of  1,800,000  square  miles.  French  empire 
in  America  is  now  represented  only  by  two  puny  islands  off  the 
coast  of  Newfoundland,  two  small  islands  in  the  West  Indies, 
and  an  unimportant  tract  of  tropical  Guiana,  but  historic  traces 
of  its  fomier  greatness  and  promise  have  sur\ived  alike  in 
Canada  and  in  Louisiana.  In  Canada  the  French  population 
has  stubbornly  held  itself  aloof  from  the  British  in  language 
and  in  religion,  and  even  to-day  two  of  the  seven  millions  of 
Canadians  are  Frenchmen,  quite  as  intent  on  the  preservation  of 
their  ancient  nationality  as  upon  their  allegiance  to  the  British 
rule.  In  the  United  States  the  French  element  is  less  in  evi- 
dence; nevertheless  in  New  Orleans  sidewalks  are  called  "ban- 
quettes," and  embankments,  "levees";  and  still  the  names  of 
St.  Louis,  Des  Moines,  Detroit,  and  Lake  Champlain  perpetuate 
the  memory  of  a  lost  empire. 

ADDITIONAL   READING 

General.  Textbooks  and  brief  treatises:  J.  S.  Bassett,  A  Short  His- 
tory of  the  United  States  (1914),  ch.  iii-vii;  A.  L.  Cross,  History  of  England 
and  Greater  Britain  (1914),  ch.  xxxvi-xlii;  J.  H.  Robinson  and  C.  A.  Beard, 
The  Development  of  Modern  Europe,  Vol.  I  (1907),  ch.  vi,  vii;  A.  D.  Innes, 
History  of  England  and  the  British  Empire,  Vol.  Ill  (1914),  ch.  i-vi;  W.  H. 
Woodward,  A  Short  History  of  the  Expansion  of  the  British  Empire,  1500- 
igii,  3d  ed.  (191 2),  ch.  i-v;  A.  T.  Story,  The  Building  of  the  British 
Empire  (1898),  Part  I,  1558-1688;  H.  C.  Morris,  The  History  of  Coloniza- 
tion (1900),  Vol.  I,  Part  ill,  ch.  x-xii,  Vol.  II,  ch.  xvi-xviii.  More  detailed 
and  specialized  studies :  John  Fiske,  New  France  and  New  England  {igo2), 
a  delightful  review  of  the  development  of  the  French  empire  in  America, 
its  struggle  with  the  British,  and  its  collapse,  and,  by  the  same  author. 
Colonization  of  the  New  World,  ch.  vii-x,  and  Independence  of  the  New 


320  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

World,  ch.  i-iii,  the  last  two  books  being  respectively  Vols.  XXI  and  XXII 
of  the  History  of  All  Nations;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  V  (1908), 
ch.  xxii,  on  the  growth  of  the  French  and  English  empires,  Vol.  VI  (igog), 
ch.  XV,  on  the  English  and  French  in  India,  1720-1763,  and  \o\.  VII  (1903), 
ch.  i-iv,  on  the  struggle  in  the  New  World ;  Pelham  Edgar,  The  Struggle 
for  a  Continent  (1902),  an  excellent  account  of  the  conflict  in  North  America, 
edited  from  the  writings  of  Parkman ;  E.  B.  Greene,  Provincial  America, 
i6go-i740  (1905),  being  Vol.  VI  of  the  "  American  Nation  "  Series  ;  Emile 
Levasseur,  Histoire  du  commerce  de  la  France,  Vol.  I  (191 1),  the  best  treat- 
ment of  French  commercial  and  colonial  policy  prior  to  1789;  Sir  J.  R. 
Seeley,  Expansion  of  England  (1895),  stimulating  and  suggestive  on  the 
relations  of  general  European  history  to  the  struggle  for  world  dominion ; 
A.  W.  Tilby,  The  English  People  Overseas,  a  great  history  of  the  British 
empire,  projected  in  8  vols.,  of  which  three  (191 2)  are  particularly  im- 
portant —  Vol.  I,  The  American  Colonies,  Ij8j~iy6j,  Vol.  II,  British  India, 
1600-1828,  and  Vol.  IV,  Britain  in  the  Tropics,  1 527-1  gio;  A.  T.  Mahan, 
The  Influence  of  Sea  Power  upon  History,  1660-1783,  24th  ed.  (1914),  an 
epoch-making  work;  Sir  W.  L.  Clowes  (editor).  The  Royal  Navy:  a  His- 
tory, 7  vols.  (1897-1903),  ch.  xx-xxviii;  J.  S.  Corbett,  England  in  the  Seven 
Years'  War,  2  vols.  (1907),  strongly  British  and  concerned  chiefly  with 
naval  warfare;  J.  W.  Fortcscue,  History  of  the  British  Army,  Vols.  I  and 
II  (1899).  See  also  the  general  histories  of  imperialism  and  of  the  British 
Empire  Hsted  in  the  bibliographies  appended  to  Chapters  XXVII  and 
XXIX,  of  Volume  II. 

With  Special  Reference  to  the  British  in  America.  C.  M.  Andrews, 
The  Colonial  Period  (191 2)  in  "  Home  University  Library,"  and  C.  L. 
Becker,  Beginnings  of  the  American  People  (191 5)  in  "The  Riverside 
History,"  able  and  stimulating  resumes;  L.  G.  Tyler,  England  in  America, 
1 580-1652  (1904),  Vol.  IV  of  "American  Nation"  Series;  John  Fiske, 
Old  Virginia  and  her  Neighbors  (1900),  and,  by  the  same  author,  in  his 
usually  accurate  and  captivating  manner.  Beginnings  of  New  England 
(1898),  and  Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonies  in  America  (1903) ;  H.  L.  Osgood, 
The  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  3  vols.  (1904-1907), 
the  standard  authority,  together  with  J.  A.  Doyle,  English  Colonies  in 
America,  5  vols.  (1882-1907) ;  Edward  Channing,  A  History  of  the  United 
States,  Vol.  II,  A  Century  of  Colonial  History,  1660-1760  (1908),  very  favor- 
able to  New  England. 

With  Special  Reference  to  the  French  in  America.  R.  G.  Thwaites, 
France  in  America,  14Q7-1763  (1905),  Vol.  VII  of  the  "  American  Nation  " 
Series,  is  a  clear  and  scholarly  survey.  For  all  concerning  French  Canada 
prior  to  the  British  conquest,  the  works  of  Francis  Parkman  occupy  an 
almost  unique  position :  they  are  well  known  for  their  attractive  quahties, 
descriptive  powers,  and  charm  of  style ;  on  the  whole,  they  are  accurate, 
though  occasionally  Parkman  seems  to  have  misunderstood  the  Jesuit 
missionaries.  The  proper  sequence  of  Parkman's  writings  is  as  follows : 
Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New  World  (1865),  The  Jesuits  in  North  America 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  321 

(1867),  La  Salle  a>id  the  Discovery  of  l/ie  Creal  IVesl  (1861)),  The  Old  Regime 
in  Canada  (1874),  Count  Fronte)iac  and  New  France  under  Louis  XIV 
(1877),  -"1  Half  Century  of  Conflict,  2  vols.  (1892),  Montcalm  and  Wolfe, 
2  vols.  (18S4),  The  Conspiracy  of  Pontiac,  and  the  Indian  War  after  the 
Conquest  of  Canada,  2  vols.  (1851).  Other  useful  studies:  C.  W.  Colby, 
Canadian  Types  of  the  Old  Regime,  i6o8-i6g8  (1908) ;  G.  M.  Wrong,  The 
Fall  of  Canada:  a  Chapter  in  the  History  of  the  Seven  Years'  War  (1914) ; 
Thomas  Hughes,  S.J.,  History  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  in  North  America, 
Vols.  I,  II  (1907-1908),  the  authoritative  work  of  a  learned  Jesuit;  T.  J. 
Campbell,  S.J.,  Pioneer  Priests  of  North  America,  1642-1710,  3  vols. 
(1911-1914);  William  Kingsford,  History  of  Canada,  10  vols.  (1S87-1897), 
elaborate,  moderately  English  in  point  of  view,  and  covering  the  years 
from  1608  to  1841  ;  F.  X.  Garneau,  Ilistoire  dii  Canada,  5th  ed.  of  the 
famous  work  of  a  French  Canadian,  revised  by  his  grandson  Hector 
Garneau,  \'ol.  I  to  1713  (1913). 

India  in  the  Seventeenth  and  Eighteenth  Centuries.  A  monumental 
History  of  India  in  6  bulky  volumes  is  now  (19 16)  in  preparation  by  the 
Cambridge  University  Press  on  the  model  of  the  "  Cambridge  Modern 
History."  Of  brief  accounts,  the  best  are:  A.  C.  Lyall,  The  Rise  and 
Expansion  of  British  Dominion  in  India,  5th  ed.  (1910) ;  A.  D.  Innes, 
.-1  Short  History  of  the  British  in  India  (1902)  ;  and  G.  B.  Malleson,  His- 
tory of  the  French  in  India,  1674-1761,  2d  ed.  reissued  (1909).  See  also 
the  English  biography  of  Dupleix  by  G.  B.  Malleson  (1895)  and  the  French 
lives  by  Tibulle  Hamont  (1881)  and  Eugene  Guenin  (1908).  An  excellent 
brief  biography  of  Clive  is  that  of  G.  B.  Malleson  (1895).  Robert  Orme 
(1728-1801),  History  of  the  Military  Transactions  of  the  British  Nation  in 
Indostan  from  174^  [to  1761],  2  vols,  in  3,  is  an  almost  contemporaneous 
account  by  an  agent  of  the  English  East  India  Company  who  had  access 
to  the  company's  records,  and  Beckles  Willson,  Ledger  and  Sword,  2  vols. 
(1903),  deals  with  the  economic  and  political  policies  of  the  English  East 
India  Company.  For  history  of  the  natives  during  the  period,  see  Sir 
H.  M.  Elliot,  History  of  India,  as  told  by  its  own  Historians:  the  Muham- 
madan  Period,  8  vols.  (1867-1877) ;  and  J.  G.  Duff,  History  of  the  Mahrattas, 
new  ed.,  3  vols.  (1913). 

William  Pitt,  Earl  of  Chatham.  Of  the  character  of  the  Elder  Pitt, 
such  an  important  factor  in  the  British  triumph  over  France,  many  differ- 
ent estimates  have  been  made  by  historians.  The  two  great  biographies 
of  the  English  statesman  are  those  of  Basil  Williams,  2  vols.  (1913),  very 
favorable  to  Pitt,  and  Albert  von  Ruville,  Eng.  trans.,  3  vols.  (1907),  hostile 
to  Pitt.  See  also  Lord  Rosebery,  Lord  Chatham,  His  Early  Life  and  Con- 
nections (1910) ;  D.  A.  Winstanley,  Lord  Chatham  and  the  Whig  Opposition 
(1912);   and  the  famous  essay  on  Pitt  by  Lord  Macaulay. 


CHAPTER   X 

THE   REVOLUTION   WITHIN    THE    BRITISH    EMPIRE 

THE   BRITISH  COLONIAL   SYSTEM   IN  THE   EIGHTEENTH 

CENTURY 

The  contest  for  world-empire,  from  which  we  have  seen  Great 
Britain  emerge  victorious,  was  closely  followed  by  a  less  suc- 
cessful struggle  to  preserve  that  empire  from  disrupting  forces. 
We  may  properly  leave  to  American  history  the  details  of  the 
process  by  which,  as  the  colonies  became  more  acutely  conscious 
of  the  inherent  conflict  between  their  economic  interests  and  the 
colonial  and  commercial  policy  of  Great  Britain,  they  grew  at 
the  same  time  into  a  self-confident  and  defiant  independence. 
Nevertheless,  as  an  epochal  event  in  the  history  of  British  im- 
perialism, the  American  War  of  Independence  deserves  a  promi- 
nent place  in  European  history. 

(   The  germs  of  disease  were  imbedded  in  the  very  policy  to 
which  many  statesmen  of  the  eighteenth  century  ascribed  Eng- 
land's great  career,  —  the  mercantilist  theories,  whose 

Mercan-  .  ,      .  t  ■,  \      rr>^ 

tuism  and  acquamtance  we  made  m  an  earlier  chapter.^  Ihe 
the  British  mercantilist  statesman,  anxious  to  build  up  the  power, 
and  therefore  the  wealth,  of  his  country,  logically  con- 
ceived three  main  ideas  about  colonies :  (i)  they  should  furnish 
the  mother  country  with  commodities  which  could  not  be  pro- 
duced at  home ;  (2)  they  should  not  injure  the  mother  country 
by  competing  with  her  industries  or  by  enriching  her  commercial 
rivals ;  and  (3)  they  should  help  bear  the  burdens  of  the  govern- 
ment, army,  and  navy.  Each  one  of  these  ideas  was  reflected 
in  the  actual  policy  which  the  British  government  in  the  eight- 
eenth century  adopted  and  enforced  in  respect  of  the  American 
colonies. 

^  See  above,  pp.  63  ff.,  and  likewise  pp.  239  f. 
322 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  323 

(i)  Various  expedients  were  employed  to  encourage  the  pro- 
duction of  particular  colonial  commodities  which  the  British 
Parhament  thought  desirable.     The  commodity  might  Regulation 
be   exempted    from    customs   duties,    or   Parliament  of  Colonial 
might  forbid  the  importation  into  Great  Britain  of    °  ^^^^^ 
similar  products  from  foreign  countries,  or  might  even  bestow 
outright  upon  the  colonial  producer  "bounties,"   or  sums  of 
money,  as  an  incentive  to  persevere  in  the  industry. 
Thus  the  cultivation  of  indigo  in  Carolina,  of  coffee  in 
Jamaica,  of  tobacco  in  Virginia,  was  encouraged,  so  that  the 
British  would  not  have  to  buy  these  desirable  commodities  from 
Spain.    Similarly,  bounties  were  given  for  tar,  pitch,  hemp,  masts, 
and  spars  imported  from  America  rather  than  from  Sweden/ 
/  (2)  The  chief  concern  of  the  mercantilist  was  the  framirfg  of 
such  governmental  regulations  of  trade  as  would  deter  colonial 
commerce  or  industry  from  taking  a  turn  which  con-  Restrictions 
ceivably  might  lessen  the  prosperity  of  the  British  on  Colonial 
manufacturers  or  shippers,  on  whom  Parliament  de-    °  "^  ^^ 
pended  for  taxes.     Of  the  colonial  industries  which  were  dis- 
couraged for  this  reason,  two  or  three  are  particularly  note- 
worthy.    Thus  the  hat  manufacturers  in  America,  though  they 
could  make  hats  cheaply,  because  of  the  plentiful  supply  of  fur 
in  the  New  World,  were  forbidden  to  manufacture  any  for  export, 
lest  they  should  ruin  the  hatters  of  London.     The  weaving  of 
cloth  was  likewise  discouraged  by  a  law  of  1699  which  prohibited 
the  export  of  woolen  fabrics  from  one  colony  to  another.     Again, 
it  was  thought  necessary  to  protect  British  iron-masters  by 
forbidding  (1750)  the  colonists  to  manufacture  wrought  iron  or 
its  finished  products.     Such  restrictions  on  manufacture  were 
imposed,  not  so  much  for  fear  of  actual  competition  in  the  Eng- 
lish market,  as  to  keep  the  colonial  markets  for  English  manu- 
facturers.    They  caused  a  good  deal  of  rancor,  but  they  were 
too  ill  enforced  to  bear  heavily  upon  the  colonies.; 

More  irksome  were  the  restrictions  on  commerce.  As  far 
back  as  1651,  when  Dutch  traders  were  bringing  spices  from  the 
East  and  sugar  from  the  West  to  sell  in  London  at  a  handsome 
profit.  Parliament  had  passed  the  first  famous  Navigation  Act,^ 
which  had  been  successful  in  its  general  design  —  to  destroy  the 

^  See  above,  pp.  277  f.,  304  f. 


324  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   P:UROPE 

Dutch  carrying  trade  and  to  stimulate  British  ship-building. 
In  the  eighteenth  century  a  similar  policy  was  applied  to  the 
Restrictions  colonies.  For  it  was  claimed  that  the  New  England 
on  Colonial  traders  who  sold  their  fish  and  lumber  for  sugar, 
molasses,  and  rum  in  the  French  West  Indies  were 
enriching  French  planters  rather  than  English.  Consequently, 
a  heavy  tariff  was  laid  on  French  sugar-products.  Moreover, 
inasmuch  as  it  was  deemed  most  essential  for  a  naval  power  to 
have  many  and  skilled  ship-builders,  the  Navigation  Acts^  were 
so  developed  and  expanded  as  to  include  the  following  prescrip- 
tions :r(i)  In  general  all  import  and  export  trade  must  be  con- 
ducted in  ships  built  in  England,  in  Ireland,  or  in  the  colonies, 
manned  and  commanded  by  British  subjects.  Thus,  if  a  French 
or  Dutch  merchantman  appeared  in  Massachusetts  Bay,  offer- 
ing to  sell  at  a  great  bargain  his  cargo  of  spices  or  silks,  the  shrewd 
merchants  of  Boston  were  legally  bound  not  to  buy  of  him. 
(2)  Certain  "enumerated"  articles,  such  as  sugar,  tobacco, 
cotton,  indigo,  and,  later,  rice  and  furs,  could  be  exported  only 
to  England.  A  Virginia  planter,  wishing  to  send  tobacco  to  a 
French  snuff -maker,  would  have  to  ship  it  to  London  in  an  Eng- 
lish ship,  pay  duties  on  it  there,  and  then  have  it  reshipped  to 
Havre.  (3)  All  goods  imported  into  the  American  colonies  from 
Europe  must  come  by  way  of  England  and  must  pay  duties 
there.  Silks  might  be  more  expensive  after  they  had  paid  cus- 
toms duties  in  London  and  had  followed  a  roundabout  route  to 
Virginia,  but  the  proud  colonial  dame  was  supposed  to  pay 
dearly  and  to  rejoice  that  English  ships  and  English  sailors  were 
employed  in  transporting  her  finery.. 

It  would  seem  as  if  such  restrictive  measures  would  not  have 

been  tolerated  in  the  colonies,  even  when  imposed  by 

forEariy        ^^^^  mother  country.     There  were,  however,  several 

Colonial         Very  good  reasons  why  the  trade  restrictions  were  long 

Toleration        tolprafpd 

of  Restric-      toierateQ. 

tions  on  In  the  first  place,  for  many  years  they  had  been  very 

and^Trade      poorly  enforced.     During  his  long  ministry,  from  1721 
to  1742,  Sir  Robert  Walpole  had  winked  at  infrac- 
tions of  the  law  and  had  allowed  the  colonies  to  develop  as  best 

^  Subsequent  to  the  Act  of  1651,  important  Navigation  Acts  were  passed  in  1660, 
1663,  1672,  and  1696. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  325 

they   might   under   his   iK)licy   of    "salutary   neglect."     Then, 
during   the   colonial   wars,   it   had   been   inexpedient  Leniency 
and  impossible  to  insist  upon  the  Navigation  Acts ;  of  Enforce- 
and  smuggling  had  become  so  common  that  respect-  °^^° 
able  merchants  made  no  effort  to  conceal  their  traffic  in  goods 
which  had  been  imported  contrary  to  provisions  of  the  law. 

iSIoreover,  the  colonies  would  gladly  endure  a  good  deal  of 
economic  hardship  in  order  to  have  the  help  of  the  mother  coun- 
try against  the  French.  So  long  as  Count  de  Fron-  Fear  of  the 
tenac  and  his  successors  were  sending  their  Indians  French 
southward  and  eastward  to  burn  New  England  villages,  it 
was  very  comforting  to  think  that  the  mother  country  would 
send  armies  of  redcoats  to  conquer  the  savages  and  defeat  the 
French. 

But  even  had  there  been  every  motive  for  armed  resistance 
to  Great  Britain,  the  American  colonies  could  hardly  have  at- 
tempted it  until  after  the  conclusion  of  the  French 
and  Indian  War.     Until  the  second  half  of  the  eight-  and^D^s-^^ 
eenth  century  the  British  colonies  were  both  weak  and  union  of 
divided.     They  had  no  navy  and  very  few  fortili-  colonies ^^° 
cations  to  defend  their  coastline.     They  had  no  army 
except  raw  and  unreliable  militia.     Even  in  1750  their  inhabit- 
ants numbered  but  a  paltry  1,300,000  as  compared  with  a  popu- 
lation in  Great  Britain  of  more  than  10,000,000  ;  and  in  wealth 
and    resources    they    could  not  dream  of  rivaling  the  mother 
country. 

The  lack  of  union  among  the  colonies  sprang  from  funda- 
mental industrial,  social,  and  reHgious  differences.  The  south- 
ern proxdnces  —  Georgia,  the  Carolinas,  and  Virginia  —  were 
agricultural,  and  their  products  were  plantation-grown  rice, 
indigo,  and  tobacco.  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  produced 
corn  and  timber.  In  New  England,  although  there  were  many 
small  farmers,  the  growing  interest  was  in  trade  and  manufac- 
ture. The  social  distinctions  were  equally  marked.  The 
northern  colonists  were  middle-class  traders  and  small  farmers, 
with  democratic  towTi  governments,  and  with  an  intense  pride 
in  education.  In  the  South,  gentlemen  of  good  old  English 
families  lived  like  feudal  lords  among  their  slaves  and  cultivated 
manners  quite  as  assiduously  as  morals.     Of  forms  of  the  Chris- 


326  HISTORY  OF  MODERN  EUROPE 

tian  religion,  the  Atlantic  coast  presented  a  bizarre  mixture.  In 
the  main,  New  England  was  emphatically  Calvinistic  and 
sternly  Puritanical ;  Virginia,  proudly  Episcopalian  (Anglican) ; 
and  Maryland,  partly  Roman  Catholic.  Plain-spoken  Quakers 
in  Pemisylvania,  Presbyterians  and  Baptists  in  New  Jersey,  and 
German  Lutherans  in  Carolina  added  to  the  confusion. 

Between  colonies  so  radically  different  in  religion,  manners, 
and  industries,  there  could  be  at  the  outset  little  harmony  or 
cooperation.  It  would  be  hard  to  arouse  them  to  concerted 
action,  and  even  harder  to  conduct  a  war.  Financial  coopera- 
tion was  impeded  by  the  fact  that  the  paper  money  issued  by 
any  one  colony  was  not  worth  much  in  the  others.  Military 
cooperation  was  difficult  because  while  each  colony  might  call 
on  its  farmers  temporarily  to  join  the  militia  in  order  to  repel  an 
Indian  raid,  the  militia-men  were  always  anxious  to  get  back  to 
their  crops  and  would  obey  a  strange  commander  with  ill  grace. 

With  the  conclusion  of  the  French  and  Indian  War,  however, 
conditions  were  materially  changed,  (i)  The  fear  of  the  French 
Altered  ^^^  ^°  longer  present  to  bind  the  colonies  to  the 

Situation  mother  country.  (2)  During  the  wars  the  colonies 
Thirteen  ^^^  grown  not  Only  more  populous  (they  numbered 
Colonies  about  2,000,000  inhabitants  in  1763)  and  more 
^^^^  ^7  3  wealthy,  but  also  more  self-confident.  Recruits  from 
the  northern  colonies  had  captured  Louisburg  in  1745  and  had 
helped  to  conquer  Canada  in  the  last  French  war.  Virginia 
volunteers  had  seen  how  helpless  were  General  Braddock's  red- 
coats in  forest-warfare.  Experiences  like  these  gave  the  pro- 
vincial riflemen  pride  and  confidence.  Important  also  was  the 
Albany  Congress  of  1754,  in  which  delegates  from  seven  colonies 
came  together  and  discussed  Benjamin  Franklin's  scheme  for 
federating  the  thirteen  colonies.  Although  the  plan  was  not 
adopted,  it  set  men  to  thinking  about  the  advantages  of  con- 
federation and  so  prepared  the  way  for  subsequent  union. 

Not  only  were  the  colonists  in  a  more  independent  frame  of 
mind,  but  the  British  government  became  more  oppressive. 
During  two  reigns  —  those  of  George  I  and  George  II  —  min- 
isters had  been  the  power  behind  the  throne,  but  in  1760 
George  III  had  come  to  the  throne  as  an  inexperienced  and 
poorly  educated  youth  of  twenty-two,  full  of  ambition  to  be 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  327 

the  power  behind   the   ministers.     Not   without   justice   have 
historians  accused  George  III  of  prejudice,  stubbornness,  and 
stupidity.      Nevertheless,     he    had     many    friends. 
The   fact    that    he,    the    first    really    English    king  Rigorous 
since  the    Revolution    of    1688,    should    manifest    a  Attitude 
great  personal  interest  and    industry    in    affairs    of  Britain^ 
state,  endeared  him  to  many  who  already  respected  toward  the 
his  irreproachable  private  morality  and  admired  his  ahe^^Ac^- 
flawless  and  unfailing  courtesy.     Under  the  inspira-  cession  of 
tion  of  Lord  Bute,^  the  "king's  friends"  became  a  j^^q^^     ' 
political    party,    avowedly    intent   on    breaking    the 
power  of  the  great  Whig  noblemen  who  had  so  long  dominated 
corrupt  Parliaments  and  unscrupulous  ministries. 

George  III  attempted  at  the  outset  to  gain  control  of  Parlia- 
ment by  wholesale  bribery  of  its  members,  but,  since  even  this 
questionable  expedient  did  not  give  him  a  majority,  he  tried 
dividing  the  forces  of  his  Whig  opponents.  This  was  somewhat 
less  difficult  since  Pitt,  the  most  prominent  Whig,  the  eloquent 
Chauvinist^  minister,  "friend  of  the  colonies,"  and  idol  of  the 
cities,  had  lost  control  of  the  ministry.  England,  too,  felt  the 
burdensome  expense  of  war,  and  the  pubHc  debt  had 
mounted   to  what  was  then   the  enormous  sum  of  GrenvUie, 

Jrrini6 

£140,000,000.     George  III,  therefore,  chose  for  prime  Minister, 

minister  (i  763-1 765)  George  Grenville,  a  representa-  ^^^^^^l^^' 

tive  of  a  faction  of  Whig  aristocrats,  who,  alarmed  of  the 

by  the  growth  of  the  pubUc  debt,  and  jealous  of  Pitt's  ^°}?^^^  ^ 

.  -Ti-  r  1       1  •       )  1-1    Pohcies  of 

power,  were  quite  wiUmg  to  favor  the  king  s  colonial  George  iii 
policies.  Great  Britain,  they  argued,  had  undergone  a 
costly  war  to  defend  the  colonists  on  the  Atlantic  coast  from 
French  aggression.  The  colonies  were  obviously  too  weak  and 
too  divided  to  garrison  and  police  the  great  Mississippi  and  St. 
Lawrence  valleys ;  and  yet,  in  order  to  prevent  renewed  danger 
from  French,  Spaniards,  or  Indians,  at  least  ten  thousand  regu- 

^  The  earl  of  Bute  (1713-1792)  became  prime  minister  in  1762,  after  the  resigna- 
tions of  Pitt,  who  had  been  the  real  head  of  the  cabinet,  and  the  duke  of  Newcastle, 
who  had  been  the  nominal  premier.  Bute  in  turn  was  succeeded  by  George 
Grenville  (17 12-17  70). 

-  Chau\'in,  a  soldier  in  Napoleon's  army,  was  so  enthusiastic  for  the  glory  of  the 
great  general  that  his  name  has  since  been  used  as  an  adjective  denoting  excessive 
patriotism  and  fondness  for  war. 


328  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

lar  soldiers  would  be  needed  at  an  annual  expense  of  £300,000. 
What  could  be  more  natural  than  that  the  colonists,  to  whose 
benefit  the  war  had  redounded,  and  to  whose  safety  the  army 
would  add,  should  pay  at  least  a  part  of  the  expense?  This 
idea,  put  forward  by  certain  Whig  statesmen,  that  the  colonists 
should  bear  part  of  the  financial  burden  of  imperial  defense, 
was  eagerly  seized  upon  by  George  III  and  utilized  as  the 
cornerstone  of  his  colonial  policy.  To  such  a  policy  the  Tories, 
as  ardent  upholders  of  the  monarchy,  lent  their  support. 

Grenville,  the  new  minister,  accordingly  proposed  that  the 
colonists  should  pay  about  £150,000  a  year,  —  roughly  a  half 
The  Sugar  of  the  estimated  total  amount,  —  and  for  raising  the 
Act,  1764  money,  he  championed  two  special  finance  acts  in  the 
British  Parliament.  The  first  was  the  Sugar  Act  of  1 764.  Gren- 
ville recognized  that  a  very  high  tariff  on  the  importation  of  for- 
eign sugar-products  into  the  colonies  invited  smuggling  on  a  large 
scale,  was  therefore  generally  evaded,  and  yielded  little  revenue 
to  the  government.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the  previous  year, 
Massachusetts  merchants  had  smuggled  15,000  hogsheads  of 
molasses  ^  from  the  French  West  Indies.  Now,  in  accordance 
with  the  new  enactment,  the  duty  was  actually  halved,  but  a 
serious  attempt  was  made  to  collect  what  remained.  For  the 
purpose  of  the  efficient  collection  of  the  sugar  tax,  the  Naviga- 
tion Acts  were  revived  and  enforced ;  British  naval  officers  were 
ordered  to  put  a  peremptory  stop  to  smuggling ;  and  magis- 
trates were  empowered  to  issue  "writs  of  assistance"  enabling 
customs  collectors  to  search  private  houses  for  smuggled  goods. 
The  Sugar  Act  was  expected  to  yield  one-third  of  the  amount 
demanded  by  the  British  ministry. 

The  other  two-thirds  of  the  £150,000  was  to  be  raised  under 
the  Stamp  Act  of  1765.  Bills  of  lading,  official  documents,  deeds, 
The  stamp  wills,  mortgages,  notes,  newspapers,  and  pamphlets 
Act,  1765  were  to  be  written  or  printed  only  on  special  stamped 
paper,  on  which  the  tax  had  been  paid.  Playing  cards  paid  a 
stamp  tax  of  a  shilling ;  dice  paid  ten  shillings ;  and  on  a  college 
diploma  the  tax  amounted  to  £2.  The  Stamp  Act  bore  heavily 
on  just  the  most  dangerous  classes  of  the  population  —  news- 

'  Large  quantities  of  molasses  were  used  in  New  England  for  the  manufacture  of 
rum. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  329 

paper-publishers,    pamphleteers,    lawyers,    bankers,    and    mer- 
chants.    Naturally  the  newspapers  protested  and  the  lawyers 
argued  that  the  Stamp  Act  was  unconstitutional,  that  opposition 
Parliament  had  no  right  to  le\^'  taxes  on  the  colonics,  in  the 
The  very  battle-cry,  "Taxation.  without^Representa-  ^°^°'"^^ 
tion  is  Tyranny^'  was  the  phrase  of  a  Boston  lawyer,  Ja'mes  Otis. 

At  once  the  claim  was  made  that  the  colonists  were  true 
British  subjects  and  that  taxation  without  representation  was  a 
flagrant  violation  of  the  "immemorial  rights  of  Englishmen." 
Now  the  colonists  had  come  to  believe  that  their  only  true  rep- 
resentatives were  those  for  whom  they  voted  personally,  the 
members  of  the  provincial  assemblies.  Each  colony  had  its 
representative  assembly ;  and  these  assemblies,  like  the  parent 
Parliament  in  Great  Britain,  had  become  very  important  by 
acquiring  the  function  of  voting  taxes.  The  colonists,  therefore, 
claimed  that  taxes  could  be  voted  only  by  their  own  assemblies, 
while  the  British  government  repUed,  with  some  pertinency, 
that  Parhament,  although  elected  by  a  very  small  minority  of 
the  population,  was  considered  to  be  generally  representative  of 
all  British  subjects. 

Many  colonists,  less  learned  than  the  lawyers,  were  unac- 
quainted with  the  subtleties  of  the  argument,  but  they  were 
quite  willing  to  be  persuaded  that  in  refusing  to  pay  ^j^^  stamp 
British  taxes  they  were  contending  for  a  great  prin-  Act  Con- 
ciple  of  Uberty  and  self-government.     Opposition  to  ^^^^^'  ^'^  ^ 
the  stamp  tax  spread  like  wildfire  and  culminated  in  a  congress 
at  New  York  in  October,  1765,  comprising  delegates  from  nine 
colonies.     The   "Stamp  Act  Congress,"   for  so  it  was  called, 
issued  a  declaration  of  rights  —  the  rights  of  trial  by  jury  ^  and 
of  self-taxation  —  and  formally  protested  against  the  Stamp  Act. 

Parliament  might  have  disregarded   the  declaration  of  the 
Congress,  but  not  the  tidings  of  popular  excitement,  of  mob 
violence,  of  stamp-collectors  burned  in  effigy.     More- 
over, colonial  boycotts  against  British  goods  —  "non-  of  the 
importation  agreements"  —  were  effective  in  creating  ^^^™p ^^^' 
sentiment  in  England  in  favor  of  conciliation.     Taking 
advantage  of  Grenville's  resignation,  a  new  ministry  under  the 

^  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  had  been  violated  by  British  officials  in  punishing 
smugglers. 


330  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

marquess  of  Rockingham/  a  liberal  Whig,  procured  the  repeal 
of  the  obnoxious  Stamp  Act  in  March,  1766.  While  the  partic- 
ular tax  was  abandoned,  a  Declaratory  Act  was  issued,  affirm- 
ing the  constitutional  right  of  Parliament  to  bind  the  colonies 
in  all  cases. 

That  right  was  asserted  again  in  1767  by  a  brilHant  but  reck- 
less chancellor  of  the  exchequer,  Charles  Townshend,  who,  with- 
^jjg  out  the  consent  of  the  other  ministers,  put  through 

Townshend  Parhament  the  series  of  acts  which  bear  his  name, 
c  s,  17  7  jjjg  intention  was  to  raise  a  regular  colonial  revenue 
for  the  support  of  colonial  governors,  judges,  and  other  officers 
as  well  as  for  the  defense  of  the  colonies.  For  these  purposes, 
import  duties  were  laid  on  glass,  lead,  painters'  colors,  paper, 
and  tea;  the  duties  were  to  be  collected  by  Enghsh  com- 
missioners resident  in  the  American  ports ;  and  infractions 
of  the  law  in  America  were  to  be  tried  in  courts  without 
juries. 

The  Townshend  Acts  brought  forth  immediate  and  indignant 
protests.  Colonial  merchants  renewed  and  extended  their  non- 
"  The  importation  agreements.     Within  a  year  the  imports 

Boston  from  Great  Britain  fell  off  by  more  than  £700,000. 

The  customs  officers  were  unable  or  afraid  to  collect  the 
duties  strictly,  and  it  is  said  that  in  three  years  the  total  revenue 
from  them  amounted  only  to  £16,000.  Troops  were  dispatched 
to  overawe  Boston,  but  the  angry  Bostonians  hooted  and  hissed 
the  "lobsterbacks,"  as  the  redcoats  were  derisively  styled,  and 
in  1770  provoked  them  to  actual  bloodshed  —  the  so-called 
"Boston  Massacre." 

At  this  crucial  moment.  King  George  III  chose  a  new  prime 
minister,  Lord  North,  a  gentleman  of  wit,  ability,  and  affabihty, 
,    .  „    ,      unfailingly  humorous,   and  unswervingly  faithful  to 

Lord  North,       i,..  t  •      r  i  i 

Prime  the  kmg.     Among  his  nrst  measures  was  the  repeal 

Minister,  (1770)  of  the  hated  Townshend  duties.  Merely  a  tax 
of  threepence  a  pound  on  tea  was  retained,  in  order 
that  the  colonies  might  not  think  that  Parhament  had  surrendered 
its  right  to  tax  them.  Lord  North  even  made  an  arrangement 
with  the  East  India  Company  whereby  tea  was  sold  so  cheaply 
that  it  would  not  pay  to  smuggle  tea  from  the  Dutch. 

1  Rockingham  retired  in  July,  1766. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  331 

But  the  colonists  would  not  now  yield  even  the  principle  of 
Parliamentary  taxation.^     They  insisted  that  were  they  to  pay 
this  tax,   trilling  as  it  might  be,  Parhament  would  ',, 
assert  that  they  had  acknowledged  its  right  to  tax  Boston 
them,  and  would  soon  lay  heavier  taxes  upon  them.  ^®*  Party," 
They,  therefore,  refused  to  buy  the  tea,  and  on  a  cold 
December  night  in  1773  a  number  of  Boston  citizens  dressed  up 
Hke  Indians,  boarded  a  British  tea  ship,  and  emptied  342  chests 
of  tea  into  the  harbor. 

Boston's  "TearParty"  brought  punishment  swift  and  sure  in 
the  famous  five  "intolerable  acts"  (1774).  Boston  harbor  was 
closed ;    Massachusetts  was  practically  deprived  of  „ 

1  c  ^         rr  ■,  -  ^  •        The  FivC 

seli-govemment ;   royal  oincers  who  committed  capi-  "intoier- 
tal  offenses  were  to  be  tried  in  England  or  in  other  ^^'®  Acts," 
colonies ;  royal  troops  were  quartered  on  the  colonists ; 
and  the  province  of  Quebec  was  extended  south  to  the  Ohio, 
cutting  off  vast  territories  claimed  by  Massachusetts.  Connec- 
ticut, and  Virginia.     This  last  act,  by  recognizing  and  estabUsh- 
ing  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  French-speaking  Quebec, 
excited  the  hvehest  fear    and    apprehension    on    the    part    of 
Protestants  in  the  Enghsh-speaking  colonies. 

Agitators  in  the  other  colonies  feared  that  their  turn  would 
come  next,  and  ralhed  to  the  aid  of  Massachusetts.  The  first 
Continental  Congress  of  delegations  from  all  the  colo- 

•      9         ,    •  •      TM  -1     1   1    1  •      r.         1   i-T  ,    First  Con- 

nies- met  m  1774  m  Philadelphia     to  dehberate  and  tinentai 

determine  upon  wise  and  proper  measures,  to  be  by  Congress, 

them  recommended  to  all  the  colonies,  for  the  recovery 

and  estabHshment  of  their  just  rights  and  liberties,  civil  and 

religious,  and  the  restoration  of  union  and  harmony  between 

Great  Britain  and  the  colonies."     The  Congress  dispatched  a 

petition  to  the  king  and  urged  the  colonists  to  be  faithful  to  the 

"American   Association"    for    the   non-importation    of   British 

goods. 

^  Despite  the  fact  that  the  colonists  had  regularly  been  paying  import  duties 
on  molasses  and  on  foreign  wine. 
^  Except  Georgia. 


332  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 


THE   WAR  OF  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE,    1775-1783 

Neither  king  nor  colonies  would  yield  a  single  point.     William 
Pitt,  now  earl  of  Chatham,  in  vain  proposed  conciliatory  meas- 
ures.    The  colonies  fast  drifted  into  actual  revolt.     In 

Revolt 

of  the  May,  1775,  the  second  Continental  Congress  met  at 

Thirteen        Philadelphia,   but  already  blood  had  been  shed  at 

Lexington  (Massachusetts),  19  April,  1775,  and  New 
England  was  a  hotbed  of  rebelHon.  The  Congress  accepted 
facts  as  they  were,  declared  war,  appointed  George  Washington 
commander-in-chief,  sent  agents  to  France  and  other  foreign 
countries,  and  addressed  a  final  petition  to  the  king. 

But  it  was  too  late  for  reconciHation,  and  events  marched  rap- 
idly until  on  4  July,  1776,  the  colonies  declared  themselves  "free 

and  independent  states."  ^     TJie  Declaration  of  Inde- 

The  Decla-  i     i  1     r  1  •  •         t  m  i 

ration  of        pcndence  was  remarkable  tor  two  thmgs,  its  philosophy 

independ-      g^^d  itS' "effects.     The  philosophy  was  that  held  by 

6nc6    I 770  . 

many  radical  thinkers  of  the  time  —  "that  all  men 
are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights"; 
that  among  such  rights  are  Hfe,  liberty,  and  the  exclusive  right 
to  tax  themselves ;  and  that  any  people  may  rightfully  depose 
a  tyrannical  ruler.  We  shall  find  a  similar  philosophy  appKed 
more  boldly  in  the  French  Revolution. 

In  America  the  Declaration  was  denounced  by  "Tories"  as 
treason,  but  was  welcomed  by  "patriots"  as  an  inspiration  and  a 
stimulus.  To  show  their  joy,  the  people  of  New  York  City 
pulled  down  the  leaden  statue  of  King  George  and  molded  it  into 
bullets.  Instead  of  rebellious  subjects,  the  English-speaking 
Americans  now  claimed  to  be  a  belHgerent  nation,  and  on  the  basis 
of  this  claim  they  sought  recognition  and  aid  from  other  nations. 

For  over  three  years,  however,  the  war  was  carried  on  simply 
between  rebelhous  colonies  and  the  mother  country.  Had  the 
grave  nature  of  the  revolt  been  thoroughly  understood  in  England 
from  the  outset,  the  colonists  might  possibly  have  been  crushed 
within  a  short  time,  for  many  of  the  richest  colonists  were  opposed 

^  The  colonies  on  the  recommendation  of  Congress  set  up  independent  govern- 
ments and  these  state  governments  were  formally  federated  in  accordance  with 
"articles  of  Confederation  and  perpetual  Union,"  drawn  up  in  Congress  in  1777 
and  fmally  ratified  in  1781. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  333 

to  the  war;    and  even  had  the  "people  of  the  United  States" 
supported  the  struggle  unanimously,  they  were  no  match  for 
Great  Britain  in  wealth,  population,   or  naval  power.     As  it 
was,  Great  Britain  allowed  the  revolution  to  get  under  full  head- 
way before  making  a  serious  effort  to  suppress  it.     In   1776, 
however,  a  force  of  about  30,000  men,  many  of  whom  were  mer- 
cenary German  soldiers,  commonly  called  "Hessians,"  was  sent 
to  occupy  New  York.     Thenceforward,  the  British  pursued  ag- 
gressive tactics,  and  inasmuch  as  their  armies  were  generally 
superior  to  those  of  the  colonists  in  numbers,  discipline,  and 
equipment,  and  besides  were  supported  by  powerful  fleets,  they 
were  able  to  possess  themselves  of  the  important  colonial  ports  of 
New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Charlestown,-^  and  to 
win  many  victories.     On  the  other  hand,   the  region  ^nd^E^'riT 
to  be  conquered  was  extensive  and  the  rebel  armies  Successes 
stubborn  and  elusive.     Moreover,  the  colonists  pos-  ^j-ltj^h 
sessed  a  skillful  leader  in  the  person  of  the  aristocratic 
Virginian  planter  who  has  already  been  mentioned  as  taking  a 
part  in  the  French  and  Indian  War.     At  first,  George  Washing- 
ton was  criticized  for  bringing  the  gravity  of  a  judge  and  the 
dignified  bearing  of  a  courtier  to  the  battlefield,  but  he  soon 
proved  his  abihty.     He    was    wise    enough    to    retreat    before 
superior  forces,  always  keeping   just   out   of  harm's   way,    and 
occasionally  catching  his  incautious  pursuer  unawares,   as  at 
Princeton  or  Trenton. 

One  of  the  crucial  events  of  the  war  was  the  surrender  of  the 
British  General  Burgo^Tie  with  some  six  thousand  men  at  Sara- 
toga, on  17  October,  1777,  after  an  unsuccessful  inva-  ^  . .  . 
sion  of  northern  New  York.     At  that  very  time,  Ben-  Reverse  at 
jamin  Frankhn,  the  public-spirited  Philadelphia  pub-  Saratoga, 
lisher,  was  in  Paris  attempting  to  persuade  France  to 
ally  herself  with  the  United  States.     Frankhn's  charming  per- 
sonaHty,  his  "repubHcan  plainness,"  his  shrewd  common  sense, 
as  well  as  his  knowledge  of  philosophy  and  science,  made  him 
welcome  at  the  brilhant  French  court;    but  France,  although 
still  smarting  under  the  humiHating  treaty  of  1763,  would  not 
yield  to  his  persuasion  until  the  American  victory  at  Saratoga 
seemed  to  indicate  that  the  time  had  come  to  strike.     An  alhance 

^  Name  changed  to  Charleston  in  1 783. 


334  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

with  the  United  States  was  concluded,  and  in  1778  war  was 
declared  against  Great  Britain. 

The  war  now  took  on  a  larger  aspect,  and  in  its  scale  of  opera- 
tions and  in  its  immediate  significance  the  fighting  in  the  colonies 

was  dwarfed  into  comparative  insignificance.  In  the 
into'^th"  attack  upon  Great  Britain,  France  was  dutifully 
War  of  joined  by  Spain  (1779).     Holland,  indignant  at  the 

(msf  ^^y  ^^  which  Great  Britain  had  tried  to  exclude  Dutch 

Spain  traders  from  commerce  with  America,  joined  the  Bour- 

iand^(i78o)'  bons  (,1780)  against  their  common  foe.     Other  nations, 

too,  had  become  alarmed  at  the  rapid  growth  and 
domineering  maritime  policy  of  Great  Britain.  Since  the  out- 
break of  hostilities,  British  captains  and  admirals  had  claimed 
the  right  to  search  and  seize  neutral  vessels  trading  with  America 
or  bearing  contraband  of  war.  Against  this  dangerous  practice, 
Catherine  II  of  Russia  protested  vigorously,  and  in  1780  formed 
Isolation  ^^^  "armed  neutrality  of  the  North"  with  Sweden 
of  Great        and  Denmark  to  uphold  the  protest  with  force,  if 

necessary.  Prussia,  Portugal,  the  Two  SiciHes,  and 
the  Holy  Roman  Empire  subsequently  pronounced  their  ad- 
herence to  the  Armed  Neutrality,  and  Great  Britain  was  con- 
fronted by  a  unanimously  hostile  Europe. 

In  the  actual  operations  only  three  nations  figured  —  France, 
Spain,  and  Holland ;  and  of  the  three  the  last  named  gave  little 
The  War  trouble  except  in  the  North  Sea.  More  to  be  feared 
in  Europe  were  France  and  Spain,  for  by  them  the  British  Em- 
pire was  attacked  in  all  its  parts.  For  a  while  in  1779  even  the 
home  country  was  threatened  by  a  Franco-Spanish  fleet  of  sixty- 
six  sail,  convoying  an  army  of  60,000  men  ;  but  the  plan  came  to 
naught.  Powerful  Spanish  and  French  forces,  launched  against 
Great  Britain's  Mediterranean  possessions,  succeeded  in  taking 
Minorca,  but  were  repulsed  by  the  British  garrison  of  Gibraltar. 
On  the  continent  of  North  America  the  insurgent  colonists, 
aided  by  French  fleets  and  French  soldiers,  gained  a  signal  vic- 
The  War  tory.  An  American  army  under  Washington,  a 
m  America  French  army  under  the  Marquis  de  Lafayette,  and  a 
French  fleet  suddenly  closed  in  upon  the  British  general,  Lord 
Cornwallis,  in  Yorktown,  Virginia,  and  compelled  him  to  sur- 
render on  19  October,  1781,  with  over  7000  men.     The  capitula- 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  335 

tion  of  Cornwallis  practically  decided  the  struggle  in  America, 
for  all  the  reserve  forces  of  Great  Britain  were  required  in 
Europe,  in  the  West  Indies,  and  in  Asia. 

Matters  were  going  badly  for  Great  Britain  until  a  naval  vic- 
tory in  the  Caribbean  Sea  partially  redeemed  the  day.     For 
three  winters  an  indecisive  war  had  been  carried  on  jj^g  -^^^ 
in  the  West  Indies,  but  in  1782  thirty-six  British  ships,  in  the  West 
under  the  gallant  Rodney,  met  the  French  Count  de 
Grasse  with  thirty-three  sail  of  the  line  near  the  group  of  islands 
known  as  "  the  Saints,"  and  a  great  battle  ensued —  the  "battle 
of  Saints"  —  on  12  April,  1782.     During  the  fight  the  g^^tie  of 
wind  suddenly  veered  around,  making  a  great  gap  in  Saints, 
the  line  of  French  ships,  and  into  this  gap  sailed  the  ^'^  ^ 
British  admiral,  breaking  up  the  French  fleet,  and,  in  the  con- 
fusion, capturing  six  vessels. 

While  the  battle  of  Saints  saved  the  British  power  in  the  West 
Indies,  the  outlook  in  the  East  became  less  favorable.  At  first 
the  British  had  been  successful  in  seizing  the  French  The  War 
forts  in  India  (1778)  and  in  defeating  (1781)  the  native  "^  ^^^^^ 
ally  of  the  French,  Hyder  Ali,  the  sultan  of  Mysore.  But  in 
1782  the  tide  was  turned  by  the  appearance  of  the  French  admiral 
De  Suffren,  whose  brilhant  victories  over  a  superior  British  fleet 
gave  the  French  temporary  control  of  the  Bay  of  Bengal. 

Unsuccessful  in  America,  inglorious  in  India,  expelled  from 
Minorca,  unable  to  control  Ireland,-^  and  weary  with 
war,  England  was  very  ready  for  peace,  but  not  en-  ^^t  m)t 
tirely  humbled,  for  was  she  not  still  secure  in  the  Ruin  of 
British  Channel,  victorious  over  the  Dutch,  triumphant  Britain 
in  the  Caribbean,  unshaken  in  India,  and  unmoved  on 
Gibraltar?     Defeat,  but  not  humiliation,  was  the  keynote  of 
the  treaties  (1783)  which  Great  Britain  concluded,  one  ^^.^^^j^^ 
at  Paris  with  the  United  States,  and  one  at  Versailles  of  Paris 
with  France  and  Spain.     Let  us  consider  the  provi-  g^J/'^"  g 
sions  of  these  treaties  in  order,  as  they  affected  the 
United  States,  France,  and  Spain. 

^  The  Protestants  in  Ireland  had  armed  and  organized  volunteer  forces,  and 
threatened  rebellion  unless  Great  Britain  granted  "home  rule"  to  them.  Great 
Britain  yielded  and  in  1782  granted  legislative  autonomy  to  the  Irish  Parliament. 
See  below,  p.  431. 


336  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

,By  the  treaty  of  Paris  (3  September,  1783),  the  former  thir- 
teen colonies  were  recognized  as  the  sovereign  and  independent 
United  States  of  America,  —  bounded  on  the  north  by 

The 

United  Canada  and  the  Great  Lakes,  on  the  east  by  the  Atlan- 

states  of  i[q^  Qn  the  west  by  the  Mississippi,  and  on  the  south  by 
Florida.  Important  fishing  rights  on  the  Newfound- 
land Banks  and  the  privilege  of  navigation  on  the  Mississippi 
were  extended  to  the  new  nation.  When  the  treaty  of  Paris 
was  signed,  the  United  States  were  still  held  loosely  together  by 
the  articles  of  Confederation,  but  after  several  years  of  political 
confusion,  a  new  and  stronger  federal  constitution  was  drawn  up 
in  1787,  and  in  1789  George  Washington  became  first  president 
of  the  republic.  The  republic  thus  created  was  the  first  im- 
portant embodiment  of  the  political  theories  of  Montesquieu 
and  other  French  philosophers,  who,  while  condemning  titled 
nobility  and  absolute  monarchy,  distrusted  the  ignorant  classes 
of  the  people,  and  believed  in  placing  political  control  chiefly  in 
the  hands  of  intelligent  men  of  property  and  position. 

Had  it  not  been  for  the  disastrous  battle  of  Saints,  France 
might  have  dictated  very  favorable  terms  in  the  treaty  of  Ver- 
Resuits  to  sailles,^  but,  as  it  was,  she  merely  regained  Tobago  in 
France  ^he  West  Indies  and  Senegal  in  Africa,  which  she  had 

lost  in  1 763  .^  The  equipment  of  navies  and  armies  had  exhausted 
the  finances  of  the  French  government,  and  was  largely  respon- 
sible for  the  bankruptcy  which  was  soon  to  occasion  the  fall  of 
absolutism  in  France.  Moreover,  French  "radicals,"  having  seen 
the  Americans  revolt  against  a  king,  were,  themselves,  the 
more  ready  to  enter  upon  a  revolution. 

Better  than  France  fared  Spain.  By  the  treaty  of  Versailles 
Results  to  she  received  the  island  of  Minorca  and  the  territory 
Spain  Qf  Florida,  which  then  included  the  southern  portions  of 

what  later  became  the  American  states  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi.^ 

^  In  1786  a  supplementary  Anglo-French  treaty  restored  regular  commerce 
between  the  two  nations,  and  recognized  that  Great  Britain  had  no  right  to  seize 
traders  flying  a  neutral  flag,  except  for  contraband  of  war,  I.e.,  guns,  powder,  and 
provisions  of  war. 

2  See  above,  p.  317. 

^  The  Louisiana  territory,  which  had  come  into  Spanish  possession  in  1763,  was 
re-ceded  to  France  in  1800  and  sold  by  France  to  the  United  States  in  1803. 
Eighteen  years  later  (1821)  all  of  Florida  was  formally  transferred  to  the  United 
States.     And  see  below,  p.  532, 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL    RIVALRY  337 

Holland,  the  least  important  participant  in  the  war,  was  not 
a  part}'  to  the  treaty  of  Versailles,  but  was  left  to  con-   settlement 
elude  a   separate  peace  with   Great  Britain  in   the  between 
following   year    (1784).     The   Dutch   not    only    lost  grTtain 
some  of  their  East  Indian  possessions,^  but,  what  was  and  HoI- 
more  essential,  they  were,  forced   to  throw  open  to    *"  >  ^7  4 
British  merchants  the  valuable  trade  of  the  Malay  Archipelago. 

THE  REFORMATION  OF  THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE 

The  War  of  American  Independence  not  only  had  cost  Great 
Britain  the  thirteen  colonies,    hitherto    the   most    important,^ 
oldest,  and  strongest  of  her  possessions,  and  likewise 
Senegal,  Florida,  Tobago,  and  Minorca,  but  it  had  diiatory 
necessitated  a  terrible  expenditure  of  men,  money,  and   Coiomai 
ships.     More  bitter  than  the  disastrous  results  of  the 
war,  however,  was  the  reflection  that  possibly  all  might  have 
been  avoided  by  a  poHcy  of  conciliation  and  concession.     Still 
it  was  not  too  late  to  learn,  and  in  its  treatment  of  the  remain- 
ing colonies,  the  British  government  showed  that  the  lesson  had 
not  been  lost. 

On  the  eve  of  the  revolt  of  the  Enghsh-speaking  colonies  in 
America,  a  wise  measure  of  toleration  was  accorded  to  the  French 
inhabitants  of  Canada  by  the  Quebec  Act  of  1774.   Quebec 
which  allowed  them  freely  to  profess   their   Roman  ^^^>  ^774 
CathoHc  reUgion,  and  to  enjoy  the  continuance  of  the  French 
ci\il    law.       To    these    advantages    was    added    in  ^^^^^  ^f 
1791    the    privilege    of    a    representative    assembly.   Control  in 
India,    too,    felt    the    influence    of   the  new  pohcy,    °  *^'  ^'^  ^ 
when    in    1784    ParHament    created    a    Board    of    Control    to 
see  that  the  East   India    Company   did   not   abuse  ^ 

.  Separate 

its   poKtical   functions.      Even   Ireland,   which    was  Parliament 
practically    a    colony,    was    accorded    in    1782    the  for  Ireland, 
right    to   make  its   own   local    laws,  a    measure    of 
self-government    enjoyed    till    i    January,    1801.^ 

^  Including  stations  on  the  Malabar  and  Coromandel  coasts  of  India. 

-  The  thirteen  colonies  were  not  actually  then  so  profitable,  however,  as 
the  fertile  West  Indies,  nor  did  they  fit  in  so  well  with  the  mercantilist  theory  of 
colonialism. 

^  See  below,  p.  431, 
z 


338  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

British  commercial  policy,  too,  underwent  a  change,  for  the 
Navigation  Acts,  which  had  angered  the  American  colonies, 
Decline  could  not  now  be  apphed  to  the  free  nation  of  the 
and  Gradual  United  States.  Moreover,  the  mercantihst  theory, 
m«i^*of"  having  in  this  case  produced  such  unfortunate  results, 
Mercan-  henceforth  began  to  lose  ground,  and  it  is  not  without 
*"'^™  interest  that  Adam  Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations,  the 

classic  expression  of  the  new  poHtical  economy  of  free  trade, 
—  of  laisser-faire,  as  the  French  styled  it,  —  which  was  destined 
to  supplant  mercantihsm,  was  pubKshed  in  1776,  the  very  year 
of  the  declaration  of  American  independence.  Of  course  Great 
Britain's  mercantihst  trade  regulations  were  not  at  once  aban- 
doned, but  they  had  received  a  death-blow,  and  British  com- 
merce seemed  none  the  worse  for  it.  The  southern  American 
states  began  to  grow  cotton  ^  for  the  busy  looms  of  British 
manufacturers,  and  of  their  own  free  will  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  bought  the  British  manufactures  which  previously 
they  had  boycotted  as  aggrieved  colonists.  In  this  particular, 
at  least,  the  loss  of  the  colonies  was  hardly  a  loss  at  all. 

Even  for  those  ardent  British  patriots  who  wished  to  see  their 
flag  waving  over  half  the  world  and  who  were  deeply  chagrined 
by  the  untoward  political  schism  that  had  rent  kindred 
of  the  Enghsh-speaking  peoples  asunder,  there  was  still  some 

British  consolatioii  and  there  was  about  to  be  some  compen- 

ci^sHf*  sation.  In  the  New  World,  Canada,  Bermuda,  the 
Eighteenth  Bahamas,  Jamaica,  and  smaller  islands  of  the  West 
en  ury  j^fjigg,  and  a  part  of  Honduras,  made  no  mean  empire ; 
and  in  the  Old  World  the  British  flag  flew  over  the  forts  at 
Gibraltar,  Gambia,  and  the  Gold  Coast,  while  India  offered 
almost  limitless  scope  for  ambition  and  even  for  greed. 

To  the  extension  and  sohdification  of  her  empire  in  the  East, 
Great  Britain  now  devoted  herself,  and  with  encouraging  re- 
sults. It  will  be  remembered  that  British  predominance  in 
India  had  already  been  assured  by  the  brilHant  and  daring 
CHve,  who  had  defeated  the  French,  set  up  a  puppet  nawab  in 
Bengal,  and  attempted  to  ehminate  corruption  from  the  ad- 

^  During  the  war,  cotton  was  introduced  into  Georgia  and  Carolina  from  the 
Bahamas,  and  soon  became  an  important  product.  In  1794,  1,600,000  pounds 
were  shipped  to  Great  Britain. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  339 

ministration.     Clive's  work  was  continued  by  a  man  no  less 
famous,  Warren  Hastings  (1732-1818),  whose  term  as  governor- 
general    of    India    (i  774-1 785)    covered    the    whole 
period  of  the  American  revolt.     At  the  age  of  seven-  of*thr'°" 
teen,  Hastings  had  first  entered  the  employ  of  the  British 
East  India  Company,  and  an  apprenticeship  of  over  in"Jndfa 
twenty  years  in   India  had  browned   his  face  and 
inured  his  lean  body  to  the  pecuharities  of  the  cHmate,  as  well 
as  giving  him  a  thorough  insight  into  the   native   character. 
When  at  last,  in  1774,  he  became  head  of  the  Indian  warren 
administration,  Hastings  inaugurated  a  pohcy  which  Hastings 
he  pursued  with  tireless  attention  to  details  —  a  poHcy  involving 
the  transference  of  British  headquarters  to   Calcutta,   and   a 
thorough  reform  of  the  poHce,  mihtary,  and  financial  systems. 
In  his  wars  and  intrigues  with  native  princes  and  in  many  of 
his  financial  transactions,  a  Parhament,  which  was  incHned  to 
censure,   found  occasion  to  attack  his  honor,  and  the  famous 
Edmund  Burke,  with  all  the  force  of  oratory  and  hatred,  at- 
tempted  to   con\dct  the  great  governor  of  ''high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors."      But    the    tirades    of   Burke    were   powerless 
against  the  man  who  had  so  potently  strengthened  the  founda- 
tions of  the  British  empire  in  India. 

In  1785  Hastings  was  succeeded  by  Lord  Cornwallis  —  the 
same  who  had  surrendered  to  Washington  at  Yorktown.  Corn- 
wallis was  as  successful  in  India  as  he  had  been  unfor-   _        „. 

Cornwallis 

tunate  in  America.     His  organization  of  the  tax  sys- 
tem proved  him  a  wise  administrator,  and  his  reputation  as  a 
general  was  enhanced  by  the  defeat  of  the  rebelHous  sultan  of 
Mysore. 

The  work  begun  so  well  by  CHve,  Hastings,  and  CornwalHs, 
was  ably  carried  on  by  subsequent  administrators,^  until  in 
1858  the  crown  finally  took  over  the  empire  of  the  East 
India  Company,  an  empire  stretching  northward  to  the 
Himalayas,  westward  to  the  Indus  River,  and  eastward  to 
the  Brahmaputra. 

In  the  years  immediately  following  the  War  of  American 
Independence  occurred  two  other  important  extensions  of  British 

^  For  details  concerning  British  rule  in  India  between  1785  and  1858,  see  Vol.  11, 
pp.  662  ff. 


340  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

power.  One  was  the  occupation  of  the  "Straits  Settlements," 
which  gave  Great  Britain  control  of  the  Malay  peninsula  and  of 
The  straits  ^^^  Straits  of  Malacca  through  which  the  spice  ships 
Settle-  passed.      But  more  valuable  as  a  future  home  for 

ments  English-speaking  Europeans,  and,  therefore,  as  par- 

tial compensation  for  the  loss  of  the  United  States,  was  the  vast 
island-continent  of  Australia,  which  had  been  almost  unknown 
until  the  famous  voyage  of  Captain  Cook  to  Botany 
Bay  in  1770.  For  many  years  Great  Britain  regarded 
Australia  as  a  kind  of  open-air  prison  for  her  criminals,  and 
the  first  British  settlers  at  Port  Jackson  (1788)  were  exiled 
convicts.  The  introduction  of  sheep-raising  and  the  discovery  of 
gold  made  the  island  a  more  attractive  home  for  colonists,  and 
thenceforth  its  development  was  rapid.  To-day,  with  an  area 
of  almost  3,000,000  square  miles,  and  a  population  of  some 
4,800,000  English-speaking  people,  Australia  is  a  commonwealth 
more  populous  than  and  three  times  as  large  as  were  the  thirteen 
colonies  with  which  Great  Britain  so  unwillingly  parted  in  1783. 

ADDITIONAL  READING 

British  Colonial  Policy.  A  very  brief  survey :  J.  S.  Bassett,  A  Short 
History  of  the  United  States  (1914),  ch.  viii,  ix.  The  most  readable  and 
reliable  detailed  account  of  mercantilism  as  applied  by  the  British  to  their 
colonies  is  to  be  found  in  the  volumes  of  G.  L.  Beer,  The  Origin  of  the  British 
Colonial  System,  1578-1660  (1908) ;  The  Old  Colonial  System,  1660-1/34, 
Part  I,  The  Establishment  of  the  System,  2  vols.  (191 2);  British  Colonial 
Policy,  1754-1765  (1907) ;  and  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward 
the  American  Colonies  (1893),  a  survey.  From  the  English  standpoint, 
the  best  summary  is  that  of  H.  E.  Egerton,  A  Short  History  of  British 
Colonial  Policy  (1897).  Other  valuable  works:  C.  M.  Andrews,  Colonial 
Self-Government  (1904),  Vol.  V  of  the  "American  Nation  "  Series;  O.  M. 
Dickerson,  American  Colonial  Government,  i6g6-i765  (191 2),  a  study  of  the 
British  Board  of  Trade  in  its  relation  to  the  American  colonies,  political, 
industrial,  and  administrative ;  G.  E.  Howard,  Preliminaries  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, 1763-1775  (1905),  Vol.  VIII  of  the  "American  Nation"  Series; 
Reginald  Lucas,  Lord  North,  Second  Earl  of  Guilford,  2  vols.  (1913) ;  and 
the  standard  treatises  of  FI.  L.  Osgood  and  of  J.  A.  Doyle  cited  in  the 
bibliography  to  Chapter  IX,  above. 

The  American  Revolution.  Sir  G.  O.  Trevelyan,  The  American  Revolu- 
tion, 4  vols.  (1899-1912),  and,  by  the  same  author,  George  the  Third  and 
Charles  Fox:  the  Concluding  Part  of  the  American  Revolution,  2  vols.  (191 2- 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  341 

1914),  scholarly  and  literary  accounts,  sympathetic  toward  the  colonists  and 
the  English  Whigs ;  Edward  Chanuing,  A  History  of  the  United  States, 
Vol.  Ill  (iqi2),  the  best  general  work;  C.  H.  Van  Tyne,  The  American 
Revolution  (1Q05),  \'ol.  IX  of  the  "  American  Nation  "  Series,  accurate 
and  informing;  John  Fiskc,  American  Revolution,  2  vols.  (1891),  a  very 
readable  popular  treatment ;  S.  Ci.  Fisher,  The  Struggle  for  American 
Independence,  2  vols.  (1908),  unusually  favorable  to  the  British  loyalists 
in  America;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  \o\.  VII  (1903),  ch.  v-vii,  written 
in  great  part  by  J.  A.  Doyle,  the  English  specialist  on  the  American  colonies ; 
J.  B.  Perkins,  France  in  the  American  Revolution  (191 1),  entertaining  and 
instructive;  Arthur  Hassall,  The  Balance  of  Power,  iji^-ijSg  (1896), 
ch.  xii,  a  very  brief  but  suggestive  indication  of  the  international  setting  of 
the  War  of  American  Independence  ;  J.  W.  Fortescue,  History  of  the  British 
Army,  Vol.  Ill  (1902),  an  account  of  the  military  operations  from  the 
English  standpoint. 

The  Reformation  of  the  British  Empire.  A  good  general  history : 
M.  R.  P.  Dorman,  History  of  the  British  Empire  in  the  Nineteenth  Century, 
Vol.  I,  lygj-iSoj  (1902),  Vol.  II,  1806-igoo  (1904).  On  Ireland :  W.  O'C. 
Morris,  Ireland,  i4g4-ipos,  2d  ed.  (1909).  On  Canada:  Sir  C.  P.  Lucas, 
A  History  of  Canada,  i^6j-iSi2  (1909).  On  India:  Sir  Alfred  Lyall, 
Warren  Hastings,  originally  published  in  1889,  reprinted  (1908),  an  ex- 
cellent biography  ;  G.  W.  Hastings,  Vindication  of  Warren  Hastings  (1909), 
the  best  apology  for  the  remarkable  governor  of  India,  and  should  be  con- 
trasted with  Lord  JNIacaulay's  celebrated  indictment  of  Hastmgs ;  Sir 
John  Strachey,  Hastings  and  the  Rohilla  War  (1892),  favorable  to  Hastings' 
work  in  India.  On  Australia:  Greville  Tregarthen,  Australian  Common- 
wealth, 3d  ed.  (1901),  a  good  outline,  in  the  "  Story  of  the  Nations  "  Series; 
Edward  Jenks,  A  History  of  the  Australasian  Colonies  (1896),  an  excellent 
summary ;  Edward  Heawood,  A  History  of  Geographical  Discovery  in  the 
Seventeenth  and  Eighteenth  Centuries  (1912) ;  Arthur  Kitson,  Captain  James 
Cook  (1907). 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE    GERMANIES    IN    THE    EIGHTEENTH    CENTURY 
THE   HOLY   ROMAN  EMPIRE   IN  DECLINE 

In  another  connection  we  have  already  described  the  polit- 
ical condition  of  the  Germanics  in  the  sixteenth  century.^ 
Backward-  Outwardly,  little  change  was  observable  in  the  eight- 
ness  of  the  eenth.  The  Holy  Roman  Empire  still  existed  as  a 
Germames  nominal  bond  of  union  for  a  loose  assemblage  of  varied 
states.  There  was  still  a  Habsburg  emperor.  There  were  still 
electors  —  the  number  had  been  increased  from  seven  to  nine  ^ 
—  with  some  influence  and  considerable  honor.  There  was 
still  a  Diet,  composed  of  representatives  of  the  princes  and  of 
the  free  cities,  meeting  regularly  at  Ratisbon.^  But  the  empire 
was  clearly  in  decline.  The  wave  of  national  enthusiasm  which 
Martin  Luther  evoked  had  spent  itself  in  religious  wrangling 
and  dissension,  and  in  the  inglorious  conflicts  of  the  Thirty  Years' 
War.  The  Germans  had  become  so  many  pawns  that  might 
be  moved  back  and  forth  upon  the  international  chessboard  by 
Habsburg  and  Bourbon  gamesters.  Switzerland  had  been  lost 
to  the  empire ;  both  France  and  Sweden  had  deliberately  dis- 
membered other  valuable  districts.* 

It  seemed  as  though  slight  foundation  remained  on  which 
a  substantial  political  structure  could  be  reared,  for  the  social 
conditions  in  the  Germanics  were  deplorable.  It  is  not  an  ex- 
aggeration to  say  that  during  the  Thirty  Years'  War  Germany 
lost  at  least  half  of  its  population  and  more  than  two-thirds  of 

^  See  above,  pp.  lo  ff. 

2  Bavaria  became  an  electorate  in  1623  and  Hanover  in  1708;  in  1778  Bavaria 
and  the  Palatinate  were  joined,  again  making  eight. 

^  Ratisbon  or  Regensburg,  —  in  the  bavarian  Palatinate.  The  Diet  met 
there  regularly  after   1663. 

^  For  the  provisions  of  the  treaties  of  Westphalia,  see  above,  pp.  228  f. 

342 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  343 

its  movable  property.  In  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
at  about  the  time  Louis  XIV  succeeded  to  a  fairly  prosperous 
France,  German  towns  and  villages  were  in  ashes,  ^    ,     ^, 

,.       .  ,    .  f  r^^         ^         Deplorable 

and  vast  districts  turned  into  deserts.  Churches  Results  of 
and  schools  were  closed  by  hundreds,  and  religious  ^^  ^^^^ 
and  intellectual  torpor  prevailed.  Industry  and 
trade  were  so  completely  paralyzed  that  by  1635  the  Hanseatic 
League  was  \'irtually  abandoned,  because  the  free  commercial 
cities,  formerly  so  wealthy,  could  not  meet  the  necessary  ex- 
penses. Economic  expansion  and  colonial  enterprise,  together 
with  the  consequent  upbuilding  of  a  well-to-do  middle  class, 
were  resigned  to  Spain,  Portugal,  Holland,  France,  or  England, 
without  a  protest  from  what  had  once  been  a  proud  burgher 
class  in  Germany.  This  elimination  of  an  influential  bourgeoisie 
was  accompanied  by  a  sorry  impoverishment  and  oppression  of 
the  peasantry.  These  native  sons  of  the  German  soil  had  fondly 
hoped  for  better  things  from  the  reHgious  revolution  and  agrarian 
insurrections  of  the  sixteenth  century;  but  they  were  doomed 
to  failure  and  disappointment.  The  peasantry  were  in  a  worse 
plight  in  the  eighteenth  century  in  Germany  than  in  any  other 
country  of  western  or  central  Europe. 

The  princes  alone  knew  how  to  profit  by  the  national  prostra- 
tion. Enriched  by  the  confiscation  of  ecclesiastical  property 
in  the  sixteenth  century  and  relieved  of  meddlesome  The  Ger- 
interference  on  the  part  of  the  emperor  or  the  Diet,  they  ™^"  Pnnces 
utihzed  the  decline  of  the  middle  class  and  the  dismal  serfdom 
of  the  peasantry  to  exalt  their  personal  political  power.  They 
got  rid  of  the  local  assemblies  or  greatly  curtailed  their  privi- 
leges, and  gradually  estabhshed  petty  tyrannies.  After  the 
Thirty  Years'  War,  it  became  fashionable  for  the  heirs  of  German 
principalities  to  travel  and  especially  to  spend  some  time  at  the 
court  of  France.  Here  they  imbibed  the  political  ideas  of  the 
Grand  Monarch,  and  in  a  short  time  nearly  every  petty  court 
in  the  Germanics  was  a  small-sized  reproduction  of  the  court 
of  Versailles.  In  a  silly  and  ridiculous  way  the  princes  aped  their 
great  French  neighbor :  they  too  maintained  armies,  palaces, 
and  swarms  of  household  officials,  w^hich,  though  a  crushing 
burden  upon  the  people,  were  yet  so  insignificant  in  comparison 
with  the  real  pomp  of  France,  that  they  were  in  many  instances 


344  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  laughingstock  of  Europe.  Beneath  an  external  gloss  of 
refinement,  these  princes  were,  as  a  class,  coarse  and  selfish, 
and  devoid  of  any  compensating  virtues.  Neither  the  common 
people,  whom  they  had  impoverished,  nor  the  Church,  which 
they  had  robbed,  was  now  strong  enough  to  resist  the  growing 
absolutism  and  selfishness  of  the  princes. 

THE   HABSBURG   DOMINIONS 

At  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  largest  and 

most  important  states  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  were  those 

,„     which  owned  the  direct  sovereignty  of  the  Austrian 

Charles  VI       ^^   ,     ,  ^i       ,         ,  rx     /  \ 

and  his  Habsburgs.     Charles    Vi    (1711-1740),    who    as    the 

Hereditary     Archduke  Charles  had  vainly  struggled  against  Louis 

Dominions      i^ttt  1  i     1      o  •  1     •    1       •  •        i 

XIV  to  secure  the  whole  Spanish  mhentance  m  the 
War  of  the  Spanish  Succession  (1702-1713),  reigned  over  exten- 
sive and  scattered  dominions.  Around  Vienna,  his  capital 
city,  were  gathered  his  hereditary  possessions:  (i)  Lower  Aus- 
tria, or  Austria  proper,  on  the  Danube ;  (2)  Inner  Austria,  which 
comprised  Styria,  Carinthia,  and  Camiola ;  (3)  Further  Austria, 
consisting  of  the  mountainous  regions  about  Innsbruck,  com- 
monly designated  the  Tyrol ;  and  (4)  Upper  Austria,  embracing 
Breisgau  on  the  upper  Rhine  near  the  Black  Forest.  To  this 
nucleus  of  lands,  in  the  greater  part  of  which  the  German  lan- 
guage was  spoken  universally,  had  been  added  in  course  of  time 
the  Czech  or  Slavic  kingdom  of  Bohemia  with  its  German  de- 
pendency of  Silesia  and  its  Slavic  dependency  of  Moravia,  and 
a  portion  of  the  Magyar  kingdom  of  Hungary,  with  its  Slavic 
dependencies  of  Croatia  and  Slavonia  and  its  Rumanian  depend- 
ency of  Transylvania.  Charles  VI,  like  so  many  of  his  Habsburg 
ancestors,  was  also  emperor  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  and  was 
thereby  accounted  the  foremost  of  German  princes.  But  neither 
Bohemia  nor  Hungary  was  predominantly  German  in  language 
or  feeling,  and  Hungary  was  not  even  a  part  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire. 

What  additions  were  made  to  the  Habsburg  dominions  by 
Charles  VI  were  all  of  non-German  peoples.  The  treaty  of 
Utrecht  had  given  him  the  Flemish-  and  French-speaking  Belgian 
Netherlands  and  the  Italian-speaking  duchy  of  Milan  and  king- 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  345 

dom  of  the  Two  Sicilies.^     A  series  of  wars  with  the  Ottoman 
Turks  had  enabled  his  family  to  press  the  Hungarian  bound- 
aries south  as  far  as  Bosnia  and  Serbia  and  to  in-  conquests 
corporate  as  a  dependency  of  Hungary  the  Rumanian-  of  Charles 
speaking  principaHty  of  Transylvania.-     Of  course  all 
these  newer  states  of  the  Habsburgs  remained  outside  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire. 

Between  the  various  peoples  who  were  thus  brought  under 
the  Habsburg  sway,  the  bond  was  of  loosest  description.     They 
spoke  a  dozen  different  languages  and  presented  an  even 
greater  diversity  of  interests.     They  did  not  constitute  of  Habs- 
a  compact,   strongly  centralized,  national   state  like  ^^^^.  ^°" 

T^  y-11        1        Ttt        1     1  t  •  •        •        1  -r    1  1    minions 

Trance.  Charles  VI  ruled  his  territories  by  mamtold 
titles :  he  was  archduke  of  Austria,  king  of  Bohemia,  king  of 
Hungary,  duke  of  Milan,  and  prince  of  the  Netherlands ;  and 
the  administration  of  each  of  these  five  major  groups  was  inde- 
pendent of  the  others.  The  single  bond  of  union  was  the  com- 
mon allegiance  to  the  Habsburg  monarch. 

To  adopt  and  pursue  a  policy  which  would  suit  all  these  lands 
and  peoples  would  hardly  be  possible  for  any  mortal :    it  cer- 
tainly surpassed  the  wit  of  the  Habsburgs.     They  had 
made  an  attempt  in  the  seventeenth  century  to  develop  Habsbur^g'" 
a  \igorous  German  policy,  to  unify  the  empire  and  to  Ambitions 
strengthen  their  hold  upon  it,  but  they  had  failed  dis-  Germanics 
mally.     The  disasters  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  the 
jealousies  and  ambitions  of  the  other  German  princes,  the  inter- 
ested intervention  of  foreign  powers,  notably  Sweden  and  France, 
made  it  brutally  clear  that  Habsburg  influence  in  the  Germanics 
had  already  reached  its  highest  pitch  and  that  henceforth  it 
would  tend  gradually  to  wane. 

Blocked  in  the  Germanics,  the  Austrian  Habsburgs  looked 
elsewhere  to  satisfy  their  aspirations.  But  almost  equal  dif- 
ficulties confronted  them.  Extension  to  the  southeast  in  the 
direction  of  the  Balkan  peninsula  involved  almost  incessant  war- 
fare with  ihe  Turks.  Increase  of  territory  in  Italy  incited 
Spain,  France,  and  Sardinia  to  armed  resistance.  Development 
of  the  trade  of  the  Belgian  Netherlands  aroused  the  hostility 

^  See  above,  p.  253,  footnote. 

*  Definitely  ceded  by  Turkey  by  the  treaty  of  Karlowitz  (1699). 


346  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

of  the  influential  commercial  classes  in  England,  Holland,  and 
France.  The  time  and  toil  spent  upon  these  non-German  proj- 
ects obviously  could  not  be  devoted  to  the  internal  affairs  of 
the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  Thus,  not  only  were  the  Germanics 
a  source  of  weakness  to  the  Habsburgs,  but  the  Habsburgs  were 
a  source  of  weakness  to  the  Germanics. 

Despite  these  drawbacks,  the  Habsburg  family  was  still 
powerful.  The  natural  resources  and  native  wealth  of  many 
^     .      ,      of  the  regions,  the  large,  if  rather  cosmopolitan,  armies 

Continued  ,  .  ,        .   ,      ,  .       f    ,      .        .  ^.  ,      . 

Prestige  which  might  be  raised,  the  mtricate  marriage  relation- 
Tr*h  h  ships  with  most  of  the  sovereign  families  of  Europe, 

the  championship  of  the  Cathohc  Church,  the  absolut- 
ist principles  and  practices  of  the  reigning  prince,  —  all  contrib- 
uted to  cloak  the  weaknesses,  under  a  proud  name  and  preten- 
tious fame,  of  the  imperial  Austrian  line. 

In  the  eighteenth  century  a  particularly  unkind  fate  seemed 
to  attend  the  Habsburgs.     We  have  already  noticed  how  the 

extinction  of  the  male  line  in  the  Spanish  branch  pre- 

Question  ..  ,  .  .,  -  .., 

of  the  cipitated  a  great  international  war  oi  succession,  with 

Habsburg       ^^ie  result  that  the  Spanish  inheritance  was  divided 

Inheritance  ^  i  •      i    t-,        i 

and  the  greater  part  passed  to  the  rival  Bourbon 
family.  Now  Charles  VI  was  obliged  to  face  a  similar  danger 
in  the  Austrian  inheritance.  He  himself  had  neither  sons  nor 
brothers,  but  only  a  daughter,  Maria  Theresa.  Spurred  on  by 
the  fate  of  his  Spanish  kinsman,  Charles  VI  directed  his  energies 
toward  securing  a  settlement  of  his  possessions  prior  to  his 
The  death.     Early  in  his  reign  he  promulgated  a  so-called 

"  ^\^^'         Pragmatic  Sanction  which  declared  that  the  Habs- 

matic  Sane-  "  .    ,  .,,'..,, 

tion "  of  burg  dominions  were  indivisible  and  that,  contrary 
Charles  VI  ^q  ^Qj^g  custom,  they  might  be  inherited  by  female 
heirs  in  default  of  male.  Then  he  subordinated  his  whole  for- 
eign policy  to  securing  general  European  recognition  of  the  right 
of  Maria  Theresa  to  succeed  to  all  his  territories.  One  after 
another  of  his  manifold  principalities  swore  to  observe  the  Prag- 
matic Sanction.  One  after  another  of  the  foreign  powers  — 
Prussia,  Russia,  Great  Britain,  Holland,  the  Empire,  Poland, 
France,  Spain,  and  Sardinia, —  to  whom  liberal  concessions  were 
made  —  pledged  their  word  and  their  honor  most  sacredly  to 
preserve  the  Pragmatic  Sanction.     When  Charles  VI  died  in 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  347 

1740,  he  left  his  daughter  a  disorganized  state,  a  bankrupt 
treasury,  and  a  small  ill-disciplined  army,  but  he  bequeathed 
her  an  ample  number  of  parchment  guarantees.  The  cynical 
Prussian  Idng  remarked  that  200,000  lighting  men  would  have 
been  a  more  useful  legacy,  and,  as  events  proved,  he  was  right. 

THE  RISE  OF  PRUSSIA.    THE  HOHENZOLLERNS 

Next  to  the  Habsburgs,  the  most  influential  German  family 
in  the  eighteenth  century  was  the  Hohenzollern.     As  far  back 
as  the  tenth  century,  a  line  of  counts  was  ruling  over  a  «pjjg  g^, 
castle  on  the  hill  of  Zollern  just  north  of  what  is  now  henzoUem 
Switzerland.     These    counts    slowly    extended    their     ^°"^ 
lands  and  their  power  through  the  fortunes  of  feudal  warfare 
and  by  means  of  a  kindly  interest  on  the  part  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Emperors,  until  at  length,  in  the  twelfth  century,  a  representa- 
tive of  the  Hohenzollems  became  by  marriage  burgrave  of  the 
important  city  of  Nuremberg. 

So  far  the  Hohenzollems  had  been  fortunate,  but  as  yet  they 
were  no  more  conspicuous  than  hundreds  of  petty  potentates 
throughout  the  empire.  It  was  not  until  they  were  Branden- 
invested  by  the  Habsburg  emperor  with  the  electorate  ^""^^ 
of  Brandenburg  in  141 5  that  they  became  prominent.  Branden- 
burg was  a  district  of  northern  Germany,  centering  in  the  town 
of  Berlin  and  lying  along  the  Oder  River.  As  a  mark,  or  frontier 
province,  it  was  the  northern  and  eastern  outpost  of  the  German 
language  and  German  culture,  and  the  exigencies  of  almost 
perpetual  warfare  with  the  neighboring  Slavic  peoples  had  given 
Brandenburg  a  good  deal  of  military  experience  and  prestige. 
As  an  electorate,  moreover,  it  possessed  considerable  influence 
in  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire. 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  the  acceptance  of  Lutheranism 
by  the  Hohenzollern  electors  of  Brandenburg  enabled  them, 
hke  many  other  princes  of  northern  Germany,  to  seize  valuable 
properties  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  to  rid  themselves  of  a 
foreign  power  which  had  curtailed  their  poHtical  and  social  sway. 
Brandenburg  subsequently  became  the  chief  Protestant  state 
of  Germany,  just  as  to  Austria  was  conceded  the  leadership  of 
the  Catholic  states. 


348  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

The  period  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  (1618-1648)  was  as 
auspicious  to  the  Hohenzollerns  as  it  was  unlucky  for  the  Habs- 
burgs.  On  the  eve  of  the  contest,  propitious  marriage 
zoUerns  ^^  alhances  bestowed  two  important  legacies  upon  the 
and  the  family  —  the  duchy  of  Cleves  "•  on  the  lower  Rhine, 
Years'  War  ^^^  ^^^  duchy  of  East  Prussia,^  on  the  Baltic  north 
of  Poland.  Henceforth  the  head  of  the  Hohenzollern 
family  could  sign  himself  margrave  and  elector  of  Brandenburg, 
duke  of  Cleves,  and  duke  of  Prussia.  In  the  last-named  role, 
he  was  a  vassal  of  the  king  of  Poland ;  in  the  others,  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Emperor.  In  the  course  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War, 
the  Hohenzollerns  helped  materially  to  lessen  imperial  control, 
and  at  the  close  of  the  struggle  secured  the  wealthy  bishoprics 
of  Halberstadt,  Minden,  and  Magdeburg,^  and  the  eastern  half 
of  the  duchy  of  Pomerania. 

The  international  reputation  of  the  Hohenzollerns  was  estab- 
lished by  Frederick  William,  commonly  styled  the  Great  Elector 
The  Great  (1640-1688).  When  he  asccndcd  the  throne,  the 
Elector  Thirty  Years'  War  had  reduced  his  scattered  domin- 

ions to  utmost  misery:  he  was  resolved  to  restore  prosperity, 
to  unify  his  various  possessions,  and  to  make  his  realm  a  factor 
in  general  European  politics.  By  diplomacy  more  than  by 
military  prowess,  he  obtained  the  new  territories  by  the  peace 
of  Westphalia.  Then,  taking  advantage  of  a  war  between 
Sweden  and  Poland,  he  made  himself  so  invaluable  to  both  sides, 
now  helping  one,  now  deserting  to  the  other,  that  by  cunning 
and  sometimes  by  unscrupulous  intrigue,  he  induced  the  king 
of  Poland  to  renounce  suzerainty  over  East  Prussia  and  to  give 

^  Though  the  alliance  between  Brandenburg  and  Cleves  dated  from  1614, 
the  Hohenzollerns  did  not  reign  over  Cleves  until  1666.  With  Cleves  went  its 
dependencies  of  Mark  and  Ravensberg. 

2  Prussia  was  then  an  almost  purely  Sla\'ic  state.  It  had  been  formed  and 
governed  from  the  thirteenth  to  the  sixteenth  century  by  the  Teutonic  Knights, 
a  military,  crusading  order  of  German  Catholics,  who  aided  in  converting  the  Slavs 
to  Christianity.  In  the  sixteenth  century  the  Grand  Master  of  the  Teutonic 
Knights  professed  the  Lutheran  faith  and  transformed  Prussia  into  an  hereditary 
duchy  in  his  own  family.  In  a  series  of  wars  West  Prussia  was  incorporated  into 
Poland,  while  East  Prussia  became  a  fief  of  that  kingdom.  It  was  to  East  Prussia 
only  that  the  Hohenzollern  elector  of  Brandenburg  succeeded  in  t6i8. 

'  The  right  of  accession  to  Magdeburg  was  accorded  the  Hohenzollerns  in  1648; 
they  did  not  formally  possess  it  until  1680. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  349 

him  that  duch\'  in  full  sovereignty.  In  the  Dutch  War  of  Louis 
XIV  (1672-1678)  he  completely  defeated  the  Swedes,  who  were 
in  alliance  with  France,  and,  although  he  was  not  allowed  by 
the  provisions  of  the  peace  to  keep*  what  he  had  conquered, 
nevertheless  the  fame  of  his  army  was  established  and  Branden- 
burg-Prussia took  rank  as  the  chief  competitor  of  Sweden's 
hegemony  in  the  Baltic. 

In  matters  of  government,  the  Great  Elector  was,  like  his  | 
contemporary  Louis  XIV,  a  firm  believer  in  absolutism.  At 
the  commencement  of  his  reign,  each  one  of  the  three  parts 
of  his  lands  —  Brandenburg,  Cleves,  and  East  Prussia  —  was 
organized  as  a  separate,  petty  state,  with  its  own  Diet  or  form  of 
representative  government,  its  own  army,  and  its  own  inde- 
pendent administration.  After  a  hard  constitutional  struggle, 
Frederick  Wilham  deprived  the  several  Diets  of  their  significant 
functions,  centered  financial  control  in  his  own  person,  declared 
the  local  armies  national,  and  merged  the  three  separate  adminis- 
trations into  one,  strictly  subservient  to  his  royal  council  at  Berlin. 
Thus,  the  three  states  were  amalgamated  into  one ;  and,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  they  constituted  a  united  monarchy. 

The  Great  Elector  was  a  tireless  worker.  He  encouraged 
industry  and  agriculture,  drained  marshes,  and  built  the  Fred- 
erick WilKam  Canal,  Joining  the  Oder  with  the  Elbe.  When 
the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  caused  so  many  Huguenots 
to  leave  France,  the  Great  Elector's  warm  invitation  attracted 
to  Brandenburg  some  20,000,  who  were  settled  around  Berlin 
and  who  gave  French  genius  as  well  as  French  names  to  their 
adopted  country.  The  capital  city,  which  at  the  Great  Elector's 
accession  numbered  barely  8000,  counted  at  his  death  a  popu- 
lation of  over  20,000. 

Brandenburg-Prussia  was  already  an  important  monarchy, 
but  its  ruler  was  not  recognized  as  "king"  until  1701,  when  the 
Emperor  Leopold  conferred  upon  him  that  title  in 
order  to  enlist  his  support  in  the  War  of  the  Spanish  ^^^  ^^' 
Succession.     In  1713,  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  the  Prussia  a 
other  European  powers  acknowledged  the  title.     It   j.-^^^  °™' 
was  Prussia,  rather  than  Brandenburg,  which  gave  its 
name  to  the  new  kingdom,  because  the  former  was  an  entirely 
independent  state,  while  the  latter  was  a  member  of  the  Holy 


3SO  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Roman  Empire.  Thereafter  the  "kingdom  of  Prussia"  ^  desig- 
nated the  combined  territories  of  the  Hohenzollern  family. 

Prussia  rose  rapidly  in  the  eighteenth  century.  She  shared 
with  Austria  the  leadership  of  the  Germanics  and  secured  a 
position  in  Europe  as  a  first-rate  power.  This  rise  was  the  result 
largely  of  the  efforts  of  Frederick  Wilham  I  (1713-1740). 

King  Frederick  WilHam  was  a  curious  reversion  to  the  type 
of  his  grandfather :  he  was  the  Great  Elector  over  again  with 
all  his  practical  good  sense  if  without  his  taste  for  diplo- 
Frederick  macy.  His  own  ideal  of  kingship  was  a  paternal  des- 
Wiiiiam  I,  potism,  and  his  ambition,  to  use  most  advantageously 
the  Umited  resources  of  his  country  in  order  to  render 
Prussia  feared  and  respected  abroad.  He  felt  that  absolutism 
was  the  only  kind  of  government  consonant  with  the  character 
of  his  varied  and  scattered  dominions,  and  he  understood  in  a 
canny  way  the  need  of  an  effective  army  and  of  the  closest  econ- 
omy which  would  permit  a  relatively  small  kingdom  to  support 
a  relatively  large  army.  Under  Frederick  William  I,  money, 
mihtary  might,  and  divine-right  monarchy  became  the  indis- 
pensable props  of  the  Hohenzollern  rule  in  Prussia. 

By  a  close  thrift  that  often  bordered  on  miserhness  King 
Frederick  Wilham  I  managed  to  increase  his  standing  army  from 
38,000  to  80,000  men,  bringing  it  up  in  numbers  so  as  to  rank 
with  the  regular  armies  of  such  first-rate  states  as  France  or 
Austria.  In  efficiency,  it  probably  surpassed  the  others.  An 
iron  discipline  molded  the  Prussian  troops  into  the  most  precise 
military  engine  then  to  be  found  in  Europe,  and  a  staff  of  officers, 
who  were  not  allowed  to  buy  their  commissions,  as  in  many 
European  states,  but  who  were  appointed  on  a  merit  basis, 
commanded  the  army  with  truly  professional  skill  and  devoted 
loyalty. 

In  civil  administration,  the  king  persevered  in  the  work  of 
centrahzing  the  various  departments.  A  "general  directory" 
was  intrusted  with  the  businesslike  conduct  of  the  finances  and 


^  At  first,  the  Hohenzollern  monarch  assumed  the  title  of  king  /;;  Prussia,  be- 
cause West  Prussia  was  still  a  province  of  the  kingdom  of  Poland.  Gradually, 
however,  under  Frederick  William  I  (1713-1740),  the  popular  appellation  of  "king 
of  Prussia"  prevailed  over  the  formal  "king  in  Prussia."  West  Prussia  was 
definitely  acquired  in  1772  (see  below,  p.  387). 


DYNASTIC  AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  351 

gradually  evolved  an  elaborate  civil  service  — •  the  famous 
Prussian  bureaucracy,  which,  in  spite  of  inevitable  "red  tape," 
is  notable  to  this  day  for  its  efficiency  and  devotion  to  duty. 
The  king  endeavored  to  encourage  industry  and  trade  by  enforc- 
ing up-to-date  mercantilist  regulations,  and,  although  he  re- 
peatedly expressed  contempt  for  current  culture  because  of 
what  he  thought  were  its  weakening  tendencies,  he  nevertheless 
prescribed  compulsory  elementary  education  for  his  people. 

King  Frederick  William,  who  did  so  much  for  Prussia,  had 
many  personal  eccentricities  that  highly  amused  Europe. 
Imbued  with  patriarchal  instincts,  he  had  his  eye  on  everybody 
and  everything.  He  treated  his  kingdom  as  a  schoolroom,  and, 
like  a  zealous  schoolmaster,  flogged  his  naughty  subjects  unmer- 
cifully. If  he  suspected  a  man  of  possessing  adequate  means, 
he  might  command  him  to  erect  a  line  residence  so  as  to  improve 
the  appearance  of  the  capital.  If  he  met  an  idler  in  the  streets, 
he  would  belabor  him  with  his  cane  and  probably  put  him  in 
the  army.  And  a  funny  craze  for  tall  soldiers  led  to  the  crea- 
tion of  the  famous  Potsdam  Guard  of  Giants,  a  special  company 
whose  members  must  measure  at  least  six  feet  in  height,  and 
for  whose  service  he  attracted  many  foreigners  by  liberal  finan- 
cial offers :  it  was  iJie  only  luxury  which  the  parsimonious 
king  allowed  himself. 

During  a  portion  of  his  reign  the  crabbed  old  king  feared  that 
all  his  labors  and  savings  would  go  for  naught,  for  he  was  su- 
premely disappointed  in  his  son,   the   crown-prince 
Frederick.     The  stern  father  had  no  sympathy  for  the  of  Frederick 
Hterary,  musical,  artistic  tastes  of  his  son,  whom  he  *^®  Great, 
thought  effeminate,  and  whom  he  abused  roundly  with 
a  quick  and  violent  temper.     When  Prince  Frederick  tried  to 
run  away,  the  king  arrested  him  and  for  punishment  put  him 
through  such  an  arduous,  slave-Hke  training  in  the  civil  and 
military   administration,    from   the   lowest   grades   upward,    as 
perhaps  no  other  royal  personage  ever  received.     It  was  this 
despised  and  misunderstood  prince  who  as  Frederick  II  succeeded 
his  father  on  the  throne  of  Prussia  in  1740  and  is  known  in  his- 
tory as  Frederick  the  Great. 

The  year  1740  marked  the  accession  of  Frederick  the  Great 
in  the  Hohenzollern  possessions  and  of  Maria  Theresa  in  the 


352  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

Habsburg  territories.^  It  also  marked  the  outbreak  of  a  pro- 
tracted struggle  within  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  between  the 
two  foremost  German  states  —  Austria  and  Prussia. 


THE   MINOR   GERIVIAN   STATES 

Of  the  three  hundred  other  states  which  composed  the  empire, 
few  were  sufficiently  large  or  important  to  exert  any  considerable 
influence  on  the  issue  of  the  contest.  A  few,  however, 
sutes^'^  which  took  sides,  deserve  mention  not  only  because  in 
other  than  the  eighteenth  century  they  preserved  a  kind  of  bal- 
Prussla^"  ance  of  power  between  the  rivals  but  also  because 
they  have  been  more  or  less  conspicuous  factors  in 
the  progress  of  recent  times.  Such  are  Bavaria,  Saxony,  and 
Hanover. 

Bavaria  lay  on  the  upper  Danube  to  the  west  of  Austria  and 

in  the  extreme  southeastern  corner  of  wlTM  is  now  the  German 

Empire.     For  centuries  it  was  ruled  by  the  Wittels- 

Bavana  .  .... 

bach  famJly,  whose  remarkable  prince,  Maximilian  I 
(1597-1651),  had  headed  tlie  CathoKc  League  and  loyally  sup- 
ported the  Habsburgs  in  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  and  by  the 
peace  of  Westphaha  had  gained  a  part  of  the  Palatinate^  together 
with  the  title  of  ''elector."  His  successor  had  labored  with 
much  credit  in  the  second  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  to 
repair  the  wounds  caused  by  the  war,  encouraging  agriculture 
and  industries,  building  or  restoring  numerous  churches  and 
monasteries.  But  the  Bavarian  electors  in  the  first  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  sacrificed  a  sound,  vigorous  policy  of  internal 
reform  to  a  far-reaching  ambition  in  international  politics. 
Despite  the  bond  of  a  common  rehgion  which  united  them  to 
Austria,  they  felt  that  their  proximity  to  their  powerful  neighbor 
made  the  Habsburgs  their  natural  enemies.  In  the  War  of  the 
Spanish  Succession,  therefore,  Bavaria  took  the  side  of  France 
against  Austria,  and  when  Maria  Theresa  ascended  the  throne 
in  1740,  the  elector  of  Bavaria,  who  had  married  a  Habsburg 

^  Below  are  discussed  the  forei<:^n  achievements  (pp.  354  ff.)  of  these  two  rival 
sovereigns,  and  in  Chapter  XIV  (pp.  440  fT.)  their  internal  policies. 

2  The  other  part  of  the  Palatinate,  under  another  branch  of  the  Wittelsbachs, 
was  reunited  with  Bavaria  in  1779. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  353 

princess  disbarred  by  the  Pragmatic  Sanction  of  Charles  VI, 
immediately  aUied  himself  witli  Frederick  of  Prussia  and  with 
France  in  order  to  dismember  the  Austrian  dominions. 

The  Saxony  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  but  a  very  small  frac- 
tion of  the  vast  Saxon  duchy  which  once  comprised  all  north- 
western Germany  and  whose  people  in  early  times  had 
emigrated  to  England  or  had  been  subjugated  by 
Charlemagne.  Saxony  had  been  restricted  since  the  thirteenth 
century  to  a  district  on  the  upper  Elbe,  wedged  in  between  Habs- 
burg  Bohemia  and  Hohenzollem  Brandenburg.  Here,  however, 
several  elements  combined  to  give  it  an  importance  far  beyond 
its  extent  or  population.  It  was  the  geographical  center  of  the 
Germanics.  It  occupied  a  strategic  position  between  Prussia 
and  Austria.  Its  ruling  family  —  the  Wettins  —  were  electors 
of  the  empire.  It  had  been,  moreover,  after  the  championship 
of  Martin  Luther  by  one  of  its  most  notable  electors,^  a  leader  of 
the  Lutheran  cause,  and  the  reformer's  celebrated  translation 
of  the  Bible  had  fixed  the  Saxon  dialect  as  the  hterary  language 
of  Germany.  At  one  time  it  seemed  as  if  Saxony,  rather  than 
Brandenburg-Prussia,  might  become  the  dominant  state  among 
the  Germanics.  But  the  trend  of  events  determined  otherwise. 
A  number  of  amiable  but  weak  electors  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury repeatedly  alUed  themselves  with  Austria  against  the 
Hohenzollems  and  thereby  practically  conceded  to  Brandenburg 
the  leadership  of  the  Protestant  states  of  northern  Germany.^ 
Then,  too,  toward  the  close  of  the  century,  the  elector  separated 
himself  from  his  people  by  becoming  a  Roman  Cathohc,  and,  in 
order  that  he  might  establish  himself  as  king  of  Poland,  _ 

.  •  1     A  •  11'      Personal 

he  burdened  the  state  with  contmued  Austrian  am-  union  of 
ance,  with  war,  and  with  heavy  taxes.     The  unnatural  ^^d^P^iand 
union  of  Saxony  and  Poland  was  maintained  through- 
out the  greater  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  :  it  was  singularly 
disastrous  for  both  parties. 

A  part  of  the  original  ancient  territory  of  the  Saxons  in  north- 

^  Frederick  the  Wise  (1486-1525). 

^  Another  source  of  weakness  in  Saxony  was  the  custom  in  the  Wettin  family 
of  dividing  the  inheritance  among  members  of  the  family.  Such  was  the  origin 
of  the  present  infinitesimal  states  of  Saxe-Weimar,  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,  Saxe- 
Meiningen,  and  Saxe-Altenburg. 


354  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

western  Germany  was  included  in  the  eighteenth  century  in  the 
state  of  Hanover,  extending  between  the  Elbe  and  the  Weser  and 
Hanover  reaching  from  Brandenburg  down  to  the  North  Sea. 
and  its  Hanover  was  recognized  as  an  electorate  during  the 

u^on"with  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^  Spanish  Succession/  but  its  real  impor- 
Great  tance  rested  on  the  fact  that  its  first  elector,  through 

"  ^'°  his    mother's    family,    became    in    17 14    George    I 

of  Great  Britain,  the  founder  of  the  Hanoverian  dynasty  in 
that  country.  This  personal  union  between  the  British  king- 
dom and  the  electorate  of  Hanover  continued  for  over  a  century, 
and  was  not  without  vital  significance  in  international  negotia- 
tions. Both  George  I  and  George  II  preferred  Hanover  to  Eng- 
land as  a  place  of  residence  and  directed  their  primary  efforts 
towards  the  protection  of  their  German  lands  from  Habsburg 
or  Hohenzollern  encroachments. 

Enough  has  now  been  said  to  give  some  idea  of  the  distracted 
condition  of  the  Germanics  in  the  eighteenth  century  and  to 
explain  why  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  was  an  unimportant  bond 
of  union.  Austria,  traditionally  the  chief  of  the  Germanies, 
was  increasingly  absorbed  in  her  non-German  possessions  in 
Hungary,  Italy,  and  the  Netherlands.  Prussia,  the  rising  king- 
dom of  the  North,  comprised  a  population  in  which  Slavs  con- 
stituted a  large  minority.  Saxony  was  linked  with  Poland ; 
Hanover,  with  Great  Britain.  Bavaria  was  a  chronic  ally  of 
France.  Add  to  this  situation,  the  political  domination  of  France 
or  Sweden  over  a  number  of  the  petty  states  of  the  empire,  the 
selfishness  and  jealousies  of  all  the  German  rulers,  the  looming 
bitter  rivalry  between  Prussia  and  Austria,  and  the  sum-total 
is  pohtical  chaos,  bloodshed,  and  oppression. 

THE   STRUGGLE   BETWEEN  HOHENZOLLERNS   AND 
HABSBURGS 

In  the  struggle  between  Prussia  and  Austria  —  between 
Hohenzollerns  and  Habsburgs  —  centered  the  European  diplo- 
macy and  wars  of  the  mid-eighteenth  century.  On  one  side 
was  the  young  king  Frederick  II  (i 740-1 786)  ;   on  the  other, 

^  The  emperor  had  given  the  title  of  elector  to  Ernest  Augustus  in  1692;  the 
Powers  recognized  George  I  as  elector  in  1 708. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  355 

the   young    queen    Maria    Theresa    (i 740-1 780).      Both    had 
ability   and   sincere   devotion   to   their   respective    states    and 
peoples,  —  a    high    sense    of    royal    responsibilities,  p^g^g^ck 
Maria  Theresa  was  beautiful,  emotional,  and  proud ;  the  Great 
Frederick  was  domineering,  cynical,  and  always  ra-  ^^^j.^^'* 
tional.     The  Austrian  princess  was  a  firm  beHever  in 
Catholic    Christianity;    the    Prussian    king   was    a   friend    of 
Voltaire  and  a  devotee  of  skepticism. 

Frederick  inherited  from  his  father  a  fairly  compact  monarchy 
and  a  splendidly  trained  and  equipped  army  of  80,000  men. 
He  smiled  at  the  disorganized  troops,  the  disordered        ^.^.  ^ 
finances,  the  conflicting  interests  in  the  hodge-podge  of  against 
territories  which  his  rival  had  inherited   from  her  ^^^l^^ 
father.     He  also  smiled  at  the  solemn  promise  which 
Prussia   had   made   to   respect   the   Austrian   dominions.     No 
sooner  was  the  Emperor  Charles  VI  dead  and  Maria  Theresa 
proclaimed  at  Vienna  than  Frederick  II  entered  into  engage- 
ments with  Bavaria  and  France  to  dismember  her  realm.     The 
elector  of  Bavaria  was  to  be  made  Holy  Roman  Emperor  as 
Charles  VII  and  Prussia  was  to  appropriate  Silesia.     France 
was  suspected  of  designs  upon  the  Austrian  Netherlands. 

Silesia  thus  became  the  bone  of  contention  between  Fred- 
erick II  and  Maria  Theresa.     Silesia  covered  the  fertile  valley 
of  the  upper  Oder,  separating  the  Slavic  Czechs  of  Frederick's 
Bohemia  on  the  west  from  the  Slavic  Poles  on  the  east.  Designs  on 
Its  population,  which  was  largely  German,  was  as  nu- 
merous as  that  of  the  whole  kingdom  of  Prussia,  and  if  annexed 
to  the  Hohenzollern  possessions  would  make  them  overwhelm- 
ingly German.     On  the  other  hand,  the  loss  of  Silesia  would 
give   Austria   less  direct   influence   in   strictly   German   affairs 
and  would  deprive  her  of  a  convenient  point  of  attack  against 
Berlin  and  the  heart  of  Prussia. 

Trumping  up  an  ancient  family  claim  to  the  duchy,  Frederick 
immediately  marched  his  army  into  Silesia  and  occu-  outbreak 
pied  Breslau,  its  capital.     To  the  west,  a  combined  of  the 
Bavarian  and  French  army  prepared  to  invade  Austria  Austrian 
and  Bohemia.      Maria  Theresa,  pressed  on  all  sides,  Succession, 
fled  to  Hungary  and  begged  the  Magyars  to  help  her.  ^^'^^ 
The   effect   was   electrical.      Hungarians,   Austrians,   and    Bo- 


356  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

hemians  rallied  to  the  support  of  the  Habsburg  throne ;  recruits 
were  drilled  and  hurried  to  the  front;  the  War  of  the  Austrian 
Succession  (i  740-1 748)  was  soon  in  full  swing. 

A   trade  war  had   broken   out  between   Great   Britain   and 
Spain  in  1739/  which  speedily  became  merged  with  the  conti- 
nental struggle.     Great  Britain  was  bent  on  maintain- 
of  Great        ing  liberal  trading  privileges  in  the  Belgian  Nether- 
Britain  lands  and  always  opposed  the  incorporation  of  those 

and  Spain  .  ,  i  •       i  i  r    i  ^  c 

provmces  into  the  rival  and  powerful  monarchy  01 
France,  preferring  that  they  should  remain  in  the  hands  of  some 
distant  and  less-feared,  less  commercial  power,  such  as  Austria. 
Great  Britain,  moreover,  had  fully  recognized  the  Pragmatic 
Sanction  and"  now  determined  that  it  was  in  accordance  with 
her  own  best  interests  to  supply  Maria  Theresa  with  money 
and  to  dispatch  armies  to  the  Continent  to  defend  the  Nether- 
lands against  France  and  to  protect  Hanover  against  Prussia. 
On  the  other  side,  the  royal  family  of  Spain  sympathized  with 
their  Bourbon  kinsmen  in  France  and  hoped  to  recover  from 
Austria  all  the  Italian  possessions  of  which  Spain  had  been 
deprived  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  (17 13). 

The  main  parties  to  the  War  of  the  Austrian  Succession  were, 
therefore,  on  the  one  hand,  Prussia,  France,  Spain,  and  Bavaria, 
and,  on  the  other,  Austria  and  Great  Britain.  With  the  former  at 
first  joined  the  elector  of  Saxony,  who  wished  to  play  off  Prussia 
against  Austria  for  the  benefit  of  his  Saxon  and  Pohsh  lands, 
and  the  king  of  Sardinia,  who  was  ever  balancing  in  Italy 
between  Habsburg  and  Bourbon  pretensions.  With  Austria 
and  Great  Britain  was  united  Holland,  because  of  her  desire  to 
protect  herself  from  possible  French  aggression. 

The  war  was  not  so  terrible  or  bloody  as  its  duration  and  the 
number  of  contestants  would  seem  to  indicate.  Saxony,  whrch 
Course  of  inclined  more  naturally  to  Austrian  than  to  Prussian 
the  War  friendship,  was  easily  persuaded  by  bribes  to  desert 
her  alHes  and  to  make  peace  with  Maria  Theresa.  Spain  would 
fight  only  in  Italy ;  and  Sardinia,  alarmed  by  the  prospect  of 
substantial  Bourbon  gains  in  that  peninsula,  went  over  to  the 
side  of  Austria.  The  Dutch  were  content  to  defend  their  own 
territories. 

^  Commonly  called  the  War  of  Jenkins's  Ear.     See  above,  p.  311. 


DYNASTIC  AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  357 

Despite  the  greatest  exertions,  Maria  Theresa  was  unable 
to  expel  Frederick  from  Silesia.  Her  generals  suffered  repeated 
reverses  at  his  hands,  and  three  times  she  was  forced  to  Success  of 
recognize  his  occupation  in  order  that  she  might  em-  Frederick 
ploy  all  her  forces  against  her  western  enemies.  By  the  third 
treaty  between  the  two  German  sovereigns,  concluded  at  Dresden 
in  1745,  Silesia'  was  definitely  ceded  by  Austria  to  Prussia. 
Frederick  had  gained  his  ends  :  he  coolly  deserted  his  allies  and 
withdrew  from  the  war. 

Meanwhile  the  Austrian  arms  had  elsewhere  been  more  suc- 
cessful. The  French  and  Bavarians,  after  winning  a  few  trifling 
victories  in  Bohemia,  had  been  forced  back  to  the  upper  Danube. 
Munich  was  occupied  by  the  troops  of  Maria  Theresa  at  the 
very  time  when  the  elector  was  being  crowned  at  Frankfort 
as  Holy  Roman  Emperor.  The  whole  of  Bavaria  was  soon  in 
Austrian  possession,  and  the  French  were  in  retreat  across  the 
Rhine.  Gradually,  also,  the  combined  forces  of  Austria  and 
Sardinia  made  headway  in  Italy  against  the  Bourbon  armies  of 
France  and  Spain. 

In  the  last  years  of  the  war,  the  French  managed  to  protect 
Alsace  and  Lorraine  from  Austrian  invasion,  and,  under  the 
command  of  the  gifted  Marshal  Saxe,  they  actually  succeeded 
in  subjugating  the  greater  part  of  the  Austrian  Netherlands  and 
in  carrying  the  struggle  into  Holland.  On  the  high  seas  and  in 
the  colonies,  the  conflict  raged  between  France  and  Great  Britain 
as  "King  George's  War,"  which  has  already  been  separately 
noted. - 

The  treaties  which  ended  the  War  of  the  Austrian  Succession 
were  signed  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  1748.     They  guar- 
anteed the  acquisition  of  Silesia  by  Frederick  II  of  of  Aix-ia- 
Prussia  and  restored  everything  else  to  the  situation  Chapeiie 
at   the  opening    of    the    conflict.     The    Wittelsbach  lidtcisive 
family   was  reinstated  in  Bavaria  and  in  the  Palati-  Character 
nate,  and  the  husband  of  Maria  Theresa,  Francis  of  between 
Lorraine,    succeeded    Charles   VII   as    Holy    Roman  Prussia 

-r>  T^  r  n     1  T,  1    and  Austria 

Emperor.       I  ranee,    for    all    her    expenditures    and 
sacrifices,  gained  nothing.     The  War  of  the  Austrian  Succession 

^  Except  a  very  small  district,  which  thereafter  was  known  as  "Austrian  Silesia." 
2  See  above,  pp.  311  f. 


358  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

was  but  a  preliminary  encounter  in  the  great  duel  for  German 
leadership  between  Prussia  and  Austria.  It  was  similarly  only 
an  indecisive  round  in  the  prolonged  battle  between  France  and 
Great  Britain  for  the  mastery  of  the  colonial  and  commercial  world. 
In  the  war  just  closed,  Austria  had  been  the  chief  loser,  and 
the  resolute  Maria  Theresa  set  herself  at  once  to  the  difficult 
task  of  recovering  her  prestige  and  her  ceded  territory, 
against  Her  first  efforts  were  directed  toward  internal  reform 

Frederick       —  consolidating  the  administrations  of   her   various 

the  Great  ,        .    .  ,         ^  .  r  .1  -i 

dommions  by  the  creation  of  a  strong  central  council 
at  Vienna,  encouraging  agriculture,  equahzing  and  augmenting 
the  taxes,  and  increasing  the  army.  Her  next  step  was  to  form 
a  great  league  of  rulers  that  would  find  a  common  interest  with 
her  in  dismembering  the  kingdom  of  Frederick.  She  knew  she 
could  count  on  Saxony.  She  easily  secured  an  ally  in  the 
Tsarina  Elizabeth  of  Russia,  who  had  been  deeply  offended  by 
the  caustic  wit  of  the  Prussian  king.  She  was  already  united  by 
friendly  agreements  with  Great  Britain  and  Holland.  She 
had  only  France  to  win  to  her  side,  and  in  this  policy  she  had  the 
services  of  an  invaluable  agent,  Count  Kaunitz,  the  greatest 
diplomat  of  the  age.  Kaunitz  held  out  to  France,  as  the  price 
for  the  abandonment  of  the  Prussian  alliance  and  the  acceptance 
of  that  of  Austria,  the  tempting  bait  of  Frederick's  Rhenish 
provinces.  But  Louis  XV  at  first  refused  an  Austrian  alHance : 
it  would  be  a  departure  from  the  traditional  French  poHcy  of 
opposing  the  Habsburgs.  Kaunitz  then  appealed  to  the  king's 
mistress,  the  ambitious  Madame  de  Pompadour,  who,  like  the 
Tsarina  EKzabeth,  had  had  plenty  of  occasions  for  taking  offense 
at  the  witty  verses  of  the  Prussian  monarch :  the  favor  of  the 
Pompadour  was  woti,  and  France  entered  the  league  against 
Prussia. 

Meanwhile,  however.  Great  Britain  had  entered  into  a  special 
agreement  with  Frederick  with  the  object  of  guaranteeing  the 
"  Di  integrity  of  Hanover  and  the  general  peace  of  the  Ger- 
lomatic  manies.  When,  therefore,  the  colonial  war  between 
Revoiu-  Great  Britain  and  France  was  renewed  in  1754,  it  was 
quite  natural  that  the  former  should  contract  a  definite 
aUiance  with  Prussia.  Thus  it  befell  that,  whereas  in  the  inde- 
cisive War  of  the  Austrian  Succession  Prussia  and  France  were 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  359 

pitted  against  Austria  and  Great  Britain,  in  the  determinant 
Seven  Years'  War,  which  ensued,  Austria  and  France  were  in 
arms  against  Prussia  and  Great  Britain.  This  overturn  of 
traditional  alliances  has  been  commonly  designated  the  "Diplo- 
matic Revolution." 

The  Seven  Years'  War  lasted  in  Europe  from  1756  to  1763, 
and,  as  regards  both  the  number  of  combatants  and  the  brilliant 
generalship  displayed,  deserves  to  rank  with  the  War  jj^g  g^^^j^ 
of  the  Spanish  Succession  as  the  greatest  war  which  Years'  War, 
the  modern  world  had  so  far  witnessed.  The  story  has  ^^^ -17  3 
already  been  told  of  its  maritime  and  colonial  counterpart,  which 
embraced  the  French  and  Indian  War  in  America  (17 54-1 763) 
and  the  triumphant  campaigns  of  Clive  in  India,  and  which 
decisively  estabUshed  the  supremacy  of  Great  Britain  on  the 
seas,  in  the  Far  East,  and  in  the  New  World. ^  There  remains 
to  sketch  its  course  on  the  European  continent. 

Without  waiting  for  a  formal  declaration  of  hostilities,  Fred- 
erick seized  Saxony,  from  which  he  exacted  large  indemnities 
and  drafted  numerous  recruits,  and,  with  his  well-  „    .   .    . 

.         .  Frederick  s 

tramed  veteran  troops,  crossed  the  mountams  into  victory  at 
Bohemia.     He    was    obliged    by    superior    Austrian  Rossbach, 
forces  to  raise  the  siege  of  Prague  and  to  fall  back  on 
his  own  kingdom.     Thence  converged  from  all  sides  the  allied 
armies  of  his  enemies.    Russians  moved  into  East  Prussia,  Swedes 
from    Pomerania   into   northern   Brandenburg,    Austrians   into 
Silesia,  while  the  French  were  advancing  from  the  west.     Here 
it  was  that  Frederick  displayed  those  qualities  which  entitle 
him  to  rank  as  one  of  the  greatest  military  commanders  of  all 
time  and  to  justify  his  title  of  "the  Great."     Inferior  in  numbers 
to  any  one  of  his  opponents,  he  dashed  with  lightning  rapidity 
into  central  Germany  and  at  Rossbach  (1757)  inflicted  an  over- 
whelming defeat  upon  the  French,  whose  general  wrote  to  Louis 
XV,  "The  rout  of  our  army  is  complete :  I  cannot  tell  you  how 
many  of  our  officers  have  been  killed,  captured,  or  lost."     No 
sooner  was  he  relieved  of  danger  in  the  west  than  he  was  back 
in  Silesia.     He  flung  himself  upon  the  Austrians  at  Leuthen, 
took  captive  a  third  of  their  army,  and  put  the  rest  to  flight. 
The  victories  of  Frederick,   however,   decimated  his  army. 

^  See  above,  pp.  312  ff. 


36o  HISTORY  OF   MODERN  EUROPE 

He  still  had  money,  thanks  to  the  subsidies  which  Pitt  poured 
in  from  Great  Britain,  but  he  found  it  very  difficult  to  procure 
men :  he  gathered  recruits  from  hostile  countries ;  he  granted 
amnesty  to  deserters ;  he  even  enrolled  prisoners  of  war.  He  was 
no  longer  sufficiently  sure  of  his  soldiers  to  take  the  offensive, 
and  for  five  years  he  was  reduced  to  defensive  campaigns  in 
Silesia.  The  Russians  occupied  East  Prussia  and  penetrated 
into  Brandenburg;   in  1759  they  captured  Berhn. 

The  French,  after  suffering  defeat  at  Rossbach,  directed  their 
energies  against  Hanover  but  encountered  unexpected  resist- 
French  ance  at  the  hands  of  an   army  collected    by  Pitt's 

Reverses  gQ^^j  g^j-^^j  commanded  by  a  Prussian  general,  the  prince 
of  Brunswick.  Brunswick  defeated  them  and  gradually  drove 
them  out  of  Germany.  This  series  of  reverses,  coupled  with 
disasters  that  attended  French  armies  in  America  and  in 
^j^g  India,    caused   the   French    king    to    call    upon    his 

"  Family  cousin,  the  king  of  Spain,  for  assistance.  The  re- 
Compact  ^^Yi  was  the  formation  of  the  defensive  alliance  (1761) 
between  the  Bourbon  states  of  France,  Spain,  and  the  Two 
Sicihes,  and  the  entrance  of  Spain  into  the  war  (1762). 

What  really  saved  Frederick  the  Great  was  the  death  of  the 
Tsarina  Elizabeth  (1762)  and  the  accession  to  the  Russian 
Withdrawal  throne  of  Peter  III,  a  dangerous  madman  but  a  warm 
of  Russia  admirer  of  the  military  prowess  of  the  Prussian  king. 
Peter  in  brusque  style  transferred  the  Russian  forces  from  the 
standard  of  Maria  Theresa  to  that  of  Frederick  and  restored 
to  Prussia  the  conquests  of  his  predecessor.^  Spain  entered  the 
war  too  late  to  affect  its  fortunes  materially.  She  was 
Hubertus-  unable  to  regain  what  France  had  lost,  and  in  fact  the 
burg  (1763) :  Bourbon   states  were  utterly  exhausted.     The  Aus- 

Humilia-  .  .  .  .     ,  .  -,.,      . 

tion  of  the      trians,  after  frantic  but  vam  attempts  to  wrest  bilesia 
Habsburgs     from  Frederick,  finally  despaired  of  their  cause. 
Triumph  The  treaty  of  Hubertusburg  (1763)  put  an  end  to 

of  the  Ho-      lY^Q  Seven  Years'  War  in  Europe.      Maria  Theresa 
finally,  though  reluctantly,  surrendered  all  claims  to 
Silesia.     Prussia  had  clearly  humihated  Austria  and  become  a 
first-rate  power.      The  Hohenzollerns  were  henceforth  the  ac- 

*  Peter  III  was  dethroned  in  the  same  year;  his  wife,  Catherine  II,  who  suc- 
ceeded him,  refused  to  give  active  military  support  to  either  side. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIV.\LRY  361 

knowledged  peers  of  the  Habsburgs.  The  almost  synchronous 
treaty  of  Paris  closed  the  war  between  Great  Britain,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  France  and  Spain  on  the  other,  by  ceding  the 
bulk  of  the  French  colonial  empire  to  the  British.  There- 
after, Great  Britain  was  practically  undisputed  mistress  of  the 
seas  and  chief  colonial  power  of  the  world. 

Frederick  the  Great  devoted  the  last  years  of  his  life  to  the 
consolidation   of  his   monarchy  ^   and   to   enlarging  its   sphere 
of  influence  rather  by  diplomacy  than  by  war.     Fred- 
erick felt  that  the  best  safeguard  against  further  at-  the  Great 
tempts  of  Austria  to  recover  Silesia  was  a  firm  alliance  and  the 
between  Prussia  and  Russia.     And  it  was  an  outcome  of^oiand 
of  that  alliance  that  in  1772  he  joined  with  the  Tsarina 
Catherine  in  making  the  first  partition  of  Poland.     Catherine  ap- 
propriated the  country  east  of  the  Diina  and  the  Dnieper  rivers. 
Frederick  annexed  West  Prussia,  except  the  towns  of  Danzig 
and  Thorn,  thereby  Hnking  up  Prussia  and  Brandenburg  by  a 
continuous  line  of  territory.     Maria  Theresa,  moved  by  the  loss 
of  Silesia  and  by  fear  of  the  undue  preponderance  which  the 
partition  of  Poland  would  give  to  her  northern  rivals,  thought 
to  adjust  the   balance  of   power  by  sharing  in   the   shameful 
transaction :   she  occupied  GaHcia,  including  the  important  city 
of  Cracow.     Maria  Theresa  repeatedly  expressed  her  abhorrence 
of  the  whole  business,  but,  as  the  scoffing  Frederick  said,  "She 
wept,  but  she  kept  on  taking." 

The  partition  of  Poland  was  more  favorable  to  Prussia  than 
to  Austria.  In  the  former  case,  the  land  annexed  lay  along  the 
Baltic  and  served  to  render  East  Prussia,  Brandenburg,  and 
Silesia  a  geographical  and  political  unit.  On  the  other  hand, 
Austria  to  some  extent  was  positively  weakened  by  the  acquisi- 
tion of  territory  outside  her  natural  frontiers,  and  the  addition 
of  a  turbulent  Polish  people  further  increased  the  diversity  of 
races  and  the  clash  of  interests  within  the  Habsburg  dominions. 

When,  a  few  years  later,  the  succession  to  the  electorate  of 
Bavaria  was  in  some  doubt  and  Austria  laid  claims  to  the  greater 
part  of  that  state  (1777-1779),  Frederick  again  stepped  in,  and 
now  by  intrigue  and  now  by  threats  of  armed  force  again  pre- 
vented any  considerable  extension  of  Habsburg  control.      His 

^  For  the  internal  reforms  of  Frederick,  see  below,  pp.  440  ff. 


362  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

last  important  act  was  the  formation  of  a  league  of  princes  to 
champion  the  lesser  German  states  against  Austrian  aggression. 
By  hard  work,  by  military  might,  by  force  of  will,  unhampered 
by  any  moral  code,  Frederick  the  Great  perfected  the  policies 
of  the  Great  Elector  and  of  Frederick  Wilham  I  and  raised 
Prussia  to  the  rank  of  partner  with  Austria  in  German  leader- 
ship and  to  an  eminent  position  in  the  international  affairs  of 
Europe.  Had  Frederick  lived,  however,  but  a  score  of  years 
longer,  he  would  have  witnessed  the  total  extinction  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire,  the  apparent  ruin  of  the  Germanies,  and  the 
degradation  of  his  own  country  as  well  as  that  of  Austria.^ 
He  might  even  have  perceived  that  a  personal  despotism,  built 
by  bloodshed  and  unblushing  deceit,  was  hardly  proof  against 
a  nation  stirred  by  ideaHsm  and  by  a  consciousness  of  its  own 
rights  and  power. 

^  See  below,  Chapter  XVI. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL  RIVALRY 


363 


THE  HOHENZOLLERN  FAMILY  (1415-1915) : 
ELECTORS  OF  BRANDENBURG,  KINGS  OF  PRUSSIA,  AND  GERMAN 

EMPERORS 

Frederick  I,  Elector  of  Brandenburg 
I  (1415-1440) 


Frederick  II 
(144&-1470) 


Albert  Achilles 

(1470-1486) 


John  Cicero 
(i486- I 499) 


Frederick,  m.  Sophia,  dau.  of  Casimir  IV, 


Margrave  of 

Ansbach, 

d.  1536 


Joachim  I 

(1499-1535) 

i 
Joachim  II 
(1535-1571) 

John  George 

(1S71-1598) 

I 

Joachim  Frederick 

(1598-1608) 

I 

John  Sigisuund 

(1608-1619) 


Albert, 

Card.  Archb. 

of  Mainz, 

d.  1545 


King  of  Poland 


Albert,  Grand  Master  of 
Teutonic  Order  (1511-1525), 
Duke  of  Prussia  (1525-1568) 


Albert  Frederick,  m.  Maria  Eleonora,  heiress 


Duke  of  Prussia 
(1568-1618) 


of  Cleves,  Jillich,  and 
Berg 


—         Aiine 


George  Willum 

(1619-1640) 


Eleonora  m.  Gustavus  Adolphus, 
King  of  Sweden 


Frederick  Willum,  the  Great  Elector 

(1640-1688) 

Frederick  III  (1688-17 13) 

(Frederick  I,  King  of  Prussia,  1701-1713) 

Frederick  Willlam  I,  m.  Sophia,  dau.  of  George  I  of  Great  Britain 
(1713-1740)  I 


Frederick  II,  the  Great         Augustus  William 
(1740-1786)  I 

Frederick  WiLLiAii  II 
(1786-1797) 

Frederick  William  HI 

(1797-1840) 

I 


Frederick  William  IV 
(1840-1861) 


William  I, 

King  of  Prussia  (i86i-i88i 
German  Emperor  (1871-1? 


Charlotte  m.  Nicholas  I, 
Tsar  of 
Russia 


Frederick  III  (1888)  m.  Victoria  of  Great  Britain 


WnxiAM  n  (1888-       )  Henry,  admiral 


Sophia  m.  Constantine  I,  King  of  Greece 


ADDITION.\L  READING 


General.  Brief  narratives:  J.  H.  Robinson  and  C.  A.  Beard,  The 
Development  of  Modern  Europe,  Vol.  I  (1907),  ch.  iv,  v;  E.  F.  Henderson, 
A  Short  History  of  Germany,  Vol.  II  (1902),  ch.  i-iv;   A.  H.  Johnson,  The 


364  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Age  of  the  Enlightened  Despot,  i66o-ij8g  (igio),  ch.  vii,  viii ;  Ferdinand 
Schevill,  The  Making  of  Modern  Germany  (1916),  ch.  i,  ii ;  Arthur  Hassall, 
The  Balance  of  Power,  ijis-ijSg  (1896),  ch.  vi-ix;  C.  T.  Atkinson, 
A  History  of  Germany,  1715-1815  (1908),  almost  exclusively  a  miUtary 
history ;  H.  T.  Dyer,  A  History  of  Modern  Europe  from  the  Fall  of  Con- 
stantinople, 3d  ed.  rev.  by  Arthur  Hassall,  6  vols.  (1901),  ch.  xlv-xlviii. 
Longer  accounts:  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  V  (1908),  ch.  xii,  xx, 
xxi,  and  Vol.  VI  (1909),  ch.  vii-ix,  xx;  Histoire  generale.  Vol.  V,  ch. 
xix,  Vol.  VI,  ch.  xvi,  and  Vol.  VII,  ch.  iv,  v;  Emile  Bourgeois,  Manuel 
historique  de  politique  etrangere,  4th  ed..  Vol.  I  (1906),  ch.  vi,  xii,  valuable 
for  international  relations  of  the  Germanies ;  Bernhard  Erdmannsdorffer, 
Deutsche  Geschichte,  i648-i'/40,  2  vols.  (1892-1893). 

The  Habsburg  Dominions  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  In  English : 
Sidney  Whitman,  Austria  (1899),  and,  by  the  same  author.  The  Realm 
of  the  Habsburgs  (1893),  brief  outlines;  Louis  Leger,  A  History  of  Austro- 
Hungary  from  the  Earliest  Time  to  the  Year  i88g,  trans,  by  Mrs.  B.  Hill 
from  a  popular  French  work  (1889) ;  William  Coxe,  House  of  Austria,  4 
vols.  (1893-1895)  in  the  Bohn  Library,  originally  published  nearly  a  cen- 
tury ago  but  still  useful,  especially  Vol.  Ill ;  C.  M.  KnatchbuU-Hugessen, 
The  Political  Evolution  of  the  Hungarian  Nation,  Vol.  I  (1908),  ch.  iv-vii; 
Armin  Vambery,  The  Story  of  Hungary  (1894),  in  the  "  Story  of  the  Na- 
tions "  Series.  In  German:  Franz  Krones,  Handbuch  der  Geschichte  Oester- 
reichs,  5  vols.  (1876-1879),  Vol.  IV,  Book  XVIII.  There  is  a  good  brief 
English  biography  of  Maria  Theresa  by  J.  F.  Bright  (1897)  in  the  "  Foreign 
Statesmen  "  Series,  and  a  great  standard  German  biography  by  Alfred  von 
Arneth,  Geschichte  Maria  Theresias,  10  vols.  (1863-1879).  See  also  A. 
Wolf  and  Hans  von  Zwiedineck-Siidenhorst,  Osterreich  unter  Maria  Theresia 
(1884). 

The  Rise  of  Prussia.  History  of  All  Nations,  Vol.  XV,  The  Age  of 
Frederick  the  Great,  Eng.  trans,  of  a  weU-known  German  history  by  Martin 
Philippson  ;  Herbert  Tuttle,  History  of  Prussia  to  the  Accession  of  Frederick 
the  Great  (1884),  and,  by  the  same  author,  History  of  Prussia  under  Frederick 
the  Great,  3  vols.,  coming  down  to  1757  (i 888-1 896),  primarily  constitu- 
tional and  political ;  Reinhold  Koser,  Geschichte  der  brandenburgisch- 
preussischen  Politik,  Vol.  I  (1914),  from  earliest  times  through  the  Thirty 
Years'  War,  by  the  late  general  director  of  the  Prussian  State  Archives,  an 
eminent  authority  on  the  history  of  his  country ;  J.  G.  Droysen,  Geschichte 
der  preussischen  Politik,  14  vols.  (1868-1876),  the  most  elaborate  history 
of  Prussia  down  to  1756  by  a  famous  national  historian;  Ernst  Berner, 
Geschichte  des  preussischen  Staales  (1891),  a  briefer,  popular  account,  richly 
illustrated ;  Hans  von  Zwiedineck-Siidenhorst,  Deutsche  Geschichte  im 
Zeitraum  der  Griindung  des  preussischen  Konigtums,  2  vols.  (1890-1894), 
an  enthusiastic  German  appreciation ;  Albert  Waddington,  Histoire  de 
Prusse,  Vol.  I  (191 1),  from  the  origins  of  the  state  to  the  death  of  the  Great 
Elector,  an  able  French  presentation.  There  is  an  admirable  old  German 
biography  of  Frederick  the  Great's  father,  with  copious  extracts  from  the 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  365 

sources,  by  F.  C.  Forster,  Fricdrich  Wilhelm  I  Konig  von  Preusscn,  3  vols. 
(1834-1835).  On  Frederick  the  Great:  F.  W.  Longman,  Frederick  the 
Great  and  the  Seven  Years'  War,  2d  ed.  (1886),  a  good  summary  in  English ; 
W.  F.  Reddaway,  Frederick  the  Great  and  the  Rise  of  Prussia  (1904)  in  the 
"  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series ;  Thomas  Carlyle,  Frederick  the  Great,  an 
English  classic  in  many  editions,  sympathetic  and  in  spots  inaccurate ; 
Reinhold  Koser,  Geschichte  Friedrichs  dcs  Grossen,  5th  ed.,  4  vols.  (1912- 
1914),  a  most  thorough  and  authoritative  biography ;  Politische  Korre- 
spondenz  Friedrichs  des  Grossen,  ed.  by  Reinhold  Koser  and  others,  in  many 
volumes,  constitutes  the  most  valuable  original  source  for  the  reign  of 
Frederick  the  Great. 

The  Wars  of  Frederick  the  Great.  G.  AL  Priest,  Germany  since  1740 
(1915),  ch.  i-iii,  a  useful  outline;  D.  J.  Hill,  History  of  Diplomacy  in  the 
International  Development  of  Europe,  \o\.  Ill  (1914),  ch.  vi-viii,  valuable 
for  diplomatic  relations ;  Richard  Waddington,  La  guerre  de  sept  ans : 
histoire  diplomatique  et  militaire,  5  vols.  (1899-1914),  the  best  history  of 
the  Seven  Years'  War ;  A.  D.  Schaefer,  Geschichte  des  siehenjdhrigen  Kriegs, 
2  vols,  in  3  (1867-1874),  a  careful  German  account ;  Wilhelm  Oncken,  Das 
Zeitalter  Friedrichs  des  Grossen,  2  vols.  (1881-1882),  an  important  work  on 
Frederick's  reign,  in  the  imposing  Oncken  Series.  See  also  A.  W.  Ward, 
Great  Britain  and  Hanover,  Some  Aspects  of  their  Personal  Union  (1899). 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   RISE    OF   RUSSIA    AND    THE    DECLINE    OF    TURKEY, 
SWEDEN,    AND    POLAND 

RUSSIA  IN  THE   SEVENTEENTH   CENTURY 

How  the  backward.  Oriental  tsardom  of  Muscovy  has  been 
transformed  into  the  huge  empire  of  Russia,  now  comprising  one- 
sixth  of  the  land  surface  and  one-twelfth  of  the  population  of 
the  earth,  is  one  of  the  most  fascinating  phases  of  the  history 
of  modern  times.  It  was  not  until  the  eighteenth  century  that 
Russia  came  into  close  contact  with  the  commerce  and  culture 
of  western  Christendom ;  not  until  then  did  she  become  a  great 
power  in  the  European  family  of  nations. 

Several  occurrences  during  the  two  centuries  which  separated 
the  reign  of  the  Tsar  Ivan  the  Great  from  that  of  Peter  the 
Russian  Great  paved  the  way  for  the  subsequent,  almost  start- 
Expansion  jjj^g^  j-jgg  Qf  ^}|g  powerful  empire  of  northern  and  east- 
ern Europe.  The  first  in  importance  was  the  expansion  of  the 
Russian  race  and  dominion.  Throughout  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries  the  farming  folk  of  the  region  about 
Moscow  were  emigrating  south  and  east  and  establishing  them- 
selves in  the  fertile  plains  of  the  Don,  the  Volga,  and  the  Irtysh.^ 
A  glance  at  the  map  of  Russia  will  show  how  the  network  of 
rivers  combined  with  the  level  character  of  the  country  to  facili- 
tate this  process  of  racial  expansion.  The  gentle  southerly 
flowing  Dnieper,  Don,  and  Volga,  radiating  from  the  same 
central  region,  and  connected  by  way  of  the  Kama  with  the 
headwaters  of  the  Dwina,  which  empties  into  the  White 
Sea  in  the  extreme  north,  became  chief  channels  of  trade  and 
migration,  and  contributed  much  more  to  the  elaboration  of 
national    unity   than   any   political   institutions.     Boats   could 

^  Armies  of  the  tsar  backed  up  the  colonists :  they  occupied  Kazan  in  1552  and 
Astrakhan,  near  the  Caspian  Sea,  in  1554. 

366 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL  RIVALRY  367 

be  conveyed  over  flat  and  easy  portages  from  one  river-basin 
to  another,  and  these  portages  with  a  relatively  small  amount 
of  labor  were  gradually  changed  into  navigable  channels,  so 
that  even  now  the  canals  are  more  important  than  many  of  the 
railways  as  arteries  of  commerce. 

As  the  emigrants  threaded  their  way  along  the  river  courses 
and  over  the  broad  plains  they  had  to  be  constantly  on  the 
alert  against  attacks  of  troublesome  natives,  and  they  The 
accordingly  organized  themselves  in  semi-military  Cossacks 
fashion.  Those  in  the  vanguard  of  territorial  expansion  con- 
stituted a  peculiar  class  known  as  Cossacks,  who,  like  frontiers- 
men of  other  times  and  places,  for  example,  like  those  that  gained 
for  the  United  States  its  vast  western  domain,  lived  a  wild  life 
in  which  agricultural  and  pastoral  pursuits  were  intermingled 
with  hunting  and  lighting.  In  the  basins  of  the  southern  rivers, 
the  Cossacks  formed  semi-independent  military  communities : 
those  of  the  Volga  and  the  Don  professed  allegiance  to  the  tsar 
of  Muscovy,  while  those  of  the  Dnieper  usually  recognized  the 
sovereignty  of  the  king  of  Poland. 

Nor  was  the  migration  of  the  Russian  race  restricted  to  Europe. 
The  division  between  Europe  and  Asia  is  largely  imaginary,  as 
another  glance  at  the  map  will  prove,  —  the  low-lying  Eastward 
Urals  are  a  barrier  only  toward  the  north,  while  south-  Expansion 
ward  the  plains  of  Russia  stretch  on  interminably 
above  the  Caspian  until  they  are  merged  in  the  steppes  of  Si- 
beria. Across  these  plains  moved  a  steady  stream  of  Cossacks 
and  peasants  and  adventurers,  carrying  with  them  the  habits 
and  traditions  of  their  Russian  homes.  Ever  eastward  wended 
the  emigrants.  They  founded  Tobolsk  in  1587  and  Tomsk  in 
1604;  they  established  Yakutsk  on  the  Lena  River  in  1632, 
and  Irkutsk  on  Lake  Baikal  in  1652  ;  in  1638  they  reached  the 
Sea  of  Okhotsk,  and,  by  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
they  occupied  the  peninsula  of  Kamchatka  and  looked  upon 
the  broad  Pacific.  Thus  at  the  time  when  the  Spaniards  were 
extending  their  speech  and  laws  throughout  South  America  and 
the  EngUsh  were  laying  the  foundations  for  the  predominance  of 
their  institutions  in  North  America,  the  Russians  were  appro- 
priating northern  Asia  and  demonstrating  that,  with  them  at 
least,  the  course  of  empire  takes  its  way  eastward. 


368  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Ivan  the  Great  had  already  been  described  m  church  serv- 
ice as  "the  ruler  and  autocrat  of  all  Russia,  the  new  Tsar 
Constantine  ^  in  the  new  city  of  Constantine,  Moscow."  His 
successors  invariably  had  themselves  crowned  as  tsars  and  auto- 
crats of  all  Russia.  By  iTiihtary  might  they  maintained  their 
control  over  the  ever-widening  territories  of  the  Russian  people ; 
with  racial  pride  and  religious  fervor,  the  distant  emigrants 
regarded  their  royal  family  at  Moscow.  The  power  of  the  tsars 
kept  pace  with  the  expansion  of  the  state. 

Yet  this  greater  Russia  remained  essentially  Oriental.  Its 
form  of  Christianity  was  derived  from  the  East  rather  than  from 
the  West.  Its  social  customs  savored  more  of  Asia 
Character-  than  of  Europc.  Its  nobles  and  even  its  tsars  were 
isticsof  rated  by  western  Christendom  as  little  better  than 
barbarians.  In  fact,  the  Russian  state  was  looked 
upon  in  the  seventeenth  century  in  much  the  same  way  as  China 
was  regarded  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  reasons  for  this  relative  backwardness  are  not  hard  to  as- 
certain. In  the  first  place,  the  rehgion  of  the  state  was  a  direct 
heritage  of  the  expiring  Eastern  Empire  and  was  different  from 
either  the  Catholicism  or  the  Protestantism  of  western  Europe. 
Secondly,  long  and  close  contact  with  the  conquering  Mongols 
or  Tatars  of  Asia  had  saturated  the  Russian  people  with  Oriental 
customs  and  habits."  Thirdly,  the  nature  of  the  country  tended 
to  exalt  agriculture  and  to  discourage  industry  and  foreign 
commerce,  and  at  the  same  time  to  turn  emigration  and  expansion 
eastward  rather  than  westward.  Finally,  so  long  as  the  neigh- 
boring western  states  of  Sweden,  Poland,  and  Turkey  remained 
powerful  and  retained  the  entire  coast  of  the  Baltic  and  Black 
seas,  Russia  was  deprived  of  seaports  that  would  enable  her  to 
engage  in  traffic  with  western  Europe  and  thus  to  partake  of 
the  common  culture  of  Christendom. 

Not  until  Russia  was  modernized  and  westernized,  and  had 
made  considerable  headway  against  one  or  all  of  her  western 

'  The  last  Csesar  of  the  Graeco-Roman  Empire,  Constantine  XI,  had  perished 
in  1453  in  vain  defense  of  Constantinople  against  the  Turks.  It  was  a  significant 
fact  that  the  Russian  rulers,  who  owed  their  Christianity  and  their  nation's  culture 
to  the  Greeks,  should  now  revive  the  title  of  Caesar  (Russian  form,  tsar  or  czar). 

^  See  above,  pp.  21  f. 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  369 

neighbors,  could  she  hope  to  become  a  European  Power.  Not 
until  the  accession  of  the  Romanov  dynasty  did  she  enter  seri- 
ously upon  this  twofold  policy. 

The  direct  line  of  Ivan  the  Great  had  died  out  at  the  close  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  and  there  ensued  what  in  Russian  history 
are  known  as  "the  troublous  times."  Disputes  over  ^j^^ 
the  succession  led  to  a  series  of  civil  wars,  and  the  "Troublous 
consequent  anarchy  invited  foreign  intervention.  For  ^" 
a  time  the  Poles  harassed  the  country  and  even  occupied  the 
Kremlin,  or  citadel,  of  Moscow.  The  Swedes,  also,  took  advan- 
tage of  the  troublous  times  in  Russia  to  enlarge  their  conquests 
on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Baltic  and  to  seize  the  important 
trading  center  of  Novgorod.  In  the  south,  the  Turks  warred 
with  the  Cossacks  and  brought  many  of  the  Crimean  princi- 
palities under  their  control. 

Under  these  discouraging  circumstances  a  great  national 
assembly  met  at  Moscow  in  16 13  to  elect  a  tsar,  and  their  choice 
fell  upon  one  of  their  own  number,  a  certain  Michael   ^ 

^  111  Accession 

Romanov,  whose  family  had  been  connected  by  mar-  of  the 
riage  ties  with  the  ancient  royal  line.     It  is  an  inter-  Romanovs, 
esting  fact  that  the  present  autocrat  of  Russia  is  a 
lineal   descendant   of   the   Romanov  who   was   thus  popularly 
elected  to  supreme  authority  in  16 13. 

Michael  Romanov  proved  an  excellent  choice.  Accepted  by 
all  classes,  he  reestablished  order  and  security  throughout  the 
country  and  successfully  resisted  foreign  encroachments.  He 
founded  several  fortified  towns  in  the  south  against  the  Tatars 
and  the  Turks.  He  recovered  Novgorod  from  the  Swedes. 
During  the  reign  of  his  son,  PoHsh  depredations  were  stopped 
and  the  Dnieper  River  was  fixed  upon  ^  as  the  general  divid- 
ing line  between  Poland  and  Russia. 

PETER  THE   GREAT 

The  grandson  of  Michael  Romanov  was  the  celebrated  Peter 
the  Great,  who  may  rightfully  be  designated  as  the  father  of 
modern  Russia.      His  older   brothers,  with  whom   during  his 

1  Treaty  of  Andrussovo  (1667),  in  accordance  with  which  Poland  ceded  to 
Russia  Kiev,  Smolensk,  and  eastern  Ukraine. 


370  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

youth  he  was  nominally  associated  in   the  government,  died 

in  turn  without  leaving  direct  heirs,  and   Peter   became   sole 

ruler  in  1606.     From  the  outset  he  showed  an  insati- 

His  Ac-  .      .  ,  ,  ,        .  . 

cession  able  curiosity  about  the  arts  and  sciences  01  western 

and  Early       Europe,  the  authority  of  its  kings  and  the  organiza- 

Travels  .         ^-  .  .  ^  ^  ^^        .  '^.      . 

tion  of  its  armies  and  fleets,  i  o  an  intense  curiosity, 
Peter  added  an  indomitable  will.  He  was  resolved  to  satisfy 
his  every  curiosity  and  to  utilize  whatever  he  learned  or  found. 

From  childhood,  Peter  had  displayed  an  aptitude  for  mechani- 
cal tools  and  inventions  and  especially  for  boat-making.  Ship- 
building and  ship-sailing  became  his  favorite  pastimes.  When 
he  was  barely  twenty-one,  he  launched  at  Archangel,  on  the 
ice-bound  White  Sea,  a  ship  which  he  had  built  with  his  own 
hands.  Now  in  1696,  being  sole  tsar  at  the  age  of  twenty-four, 
he  fitted  out  a  fleet  which  defeated  the  Turks  on  the  Black  Sea 
and  allowed  him  to  capture  the  valuable  port  of  Azov.  No  other 
successes  were  gained,  however,  in  this  Turkish  War ;  and  the 
young  tsar  began  to  perceive  that  if  he  were  to  succeed  in  his 
cherished  project  he  would  have  to  obtain  Western  aid.  In 
1697,  therefore,  a  special  commission  left  Moscow  for  the  pur- 
pose of  soliciting  the  cooperation  of  the  principal  Powers  against 
Turkey,  and  to  this  commission  the  young  tsar  attached  him- 
self as  a  volunteer  sailor,  "Peter  Mikhailov,"  in  order  that  he 
might  incidentally  learn  much  about  ship-building  and  other 
technical  sciences. 

In  its  primary  purpose,  the  Russian  commission  failed  sig- 
nally. Western  Europe  was  on  the  eve  of  the  War  of  the  Spanish 
Succession,  and  all  the  European  sovereigns  seemed  to  be  en- 
grossed in  the  distractions  of  dynastic  poHtics.  No  help  against 
the  Turks  was  forthcoming.  But  personally  Peter  learned  many 
useful  things.  In  Holland  he  studied  ship-building  as  well  as 
anatomy  and  engraving.  In  England  he  investigated  industry 
and  commerce.  He  closely  scrutinized  the  miHtary  establish- 
ment of  Prussia.  In  all  places  which  he  visited  he  collected 
artisans,  sailors,  engineers,  or  other  workmen,  whom  he  sent 
back  to  Russia  to  instruct  his  people. 

While  he  was  on  his  way  from  Vienna  to  Venice,  news  reached 
him  that  the  royal  bodyguard,  called  the  streltsi,  had  taken 
advantage  of  his  absence  of  a  year  and  a  half  and  had  mutinied 


DYNASTIC   AND    COLONIAL   RIVALRY  371 

at  Moscow.     In  hot  haste  he  hurried  home  and  wreaked  dire 
vengeance  upon  the  mutineers.      Two  thousand  were  hung  or 
broken  on  the  wheel,  live  thousand  were  beheaded, 
and  Peter  for  many  days  amused  himself  and  edilied  sion  of 
his  court  by  the  wonderful  dexterity  he  displayed  in  ^® 
sUcing  off  the  heads  of  slrdtsi  with  his  own  ro3^al  arm. 

The  severe  punishment  of  the  rebellious  streltsi  and  the 
immediate  abohtion  of  their  military  organization  was  clear 
evidence  that  Peter  was  fully  determined  both  to  break  with  the 
past  traditions  of  his  country  and  to  compel  all  the  Russian 
people  to  do  likewise. 

His  first  care  was  the  reconstruction  of  the  army  on  the 
Prussian  model.     Officered  and   disciplined   by   for-  Military 
eigners  dependent  entirely  upon  the   tsar,   the  new  Reform 
army  replaced  the  streltsi  and  proved  a  potent  factor  in  further- 
ing the  domestic  and  foreign  policies  of  Peter  the  Great. 

The  young  reformer  next  turned  his  attention  to  the  customs 
of  his  people  —  their  clothing  and  manners  —  which  he  would 
transform  from  Oriental  to  Occidental.    Edict  followed  ^  ,   ^    ,. 

•  ,.  rr.1  1  •   J-  Introduction 

edict  with  amazing  rapidity.     The  chief  potentates  of  Occi- 
of  the  empire  were  solemnly  assembled  so  that  Peter  Rental 

^  .  .  .      Customs 

with  his  own  hand  might  deliberately  chp  off  their 
long  beards  and  flowing  mustaches.     A  heavy  tax  was  imposed 
on  such  as  persisted  in  wearing  beards.     French  or  German 
clothes  were  to  be  substituted,  under  penalty  of  large  fines, 
for  the  traditional  Russian  costume.     The  use  of  tobacco  was 
made  compulsory.     The  Oriental  semi-seclusion  of  women  was 
prohibited.     Both  sexes  were  to  mingle  freely  in  the  festivities 
of  the  court.     These  innovations  were  largely  superficial :   they 
partially  permeated  the  nobihty  and  clergy,  but  made   little 
impression  on  the  mass  of  the  population.     Peter  had  begun  a 
work,  however,  which  was  certain  of  great  results  in  the  future. 
The  reign  of  Peter  the  Great  is  notable  for  the  removal  of 
serious  checks  upon  the  power  of  the  tsar  and  the  definitive  estab- 
lishment of  that  form  of  absolutism  which  in  Russia  is  ueveiop- 
called  ''autocracy."     By  sheer  abihty  and  will-power,  ment  of 
the  tsar  was  quahfied  to  play  the  role  of  divine-right     "  ocracy 
monarch,  and  his  observation   of  the  centralized  government 
of  Louis  XIV,  as  well  as  the  appreciation  of  his  country's  needs, 


372  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

convinced  him  that  that  kind  of  government  was  the  most  suit- 
able for  Russia. 

We  have  already  observed  how  Peter  replaced  the  inde- 
pendent, turbulent  streltsi  with  a  thoroughly  devoted  and  or- 
^  ,     ,.         derly  standing  army.     That  was  one  important  step 

Subordi-  .        ,        ,.  .  .  ^,  1 

nation  of  m  the  direction  of  autocracy.  Ihe  next  was  the  sub- 
J^^  ^y^^° ,  ordination  of  the  Church  to  the  state.  The  tsar  under- 
to  the  stood  the  very  great  influence  which  the  Holy  Ortho- 

Russian  (^Qx  Church  exerted  over  the  Russian  people  and  the 
danger  to  his  policies  that  ecclesiastical  opposition 
might  create.  He  was  naturally  anxious  that  the  Church  should 
become  the  ally,  not  the  enemy,  of  autocracy.  He,  therefore, 
took  such  steps  as  would  exalt  the  Church  in  the  opinion  of  his 
comitrymen  and  at  the  same  time  would  render  it  a  serviceable 
agent  of  the  government.  Professing  the  warmest  faith  in  its 
rehgious  tenets,  he  deprived  the  patriarch  ^  of  Moscow  of  his 
privilege  of  controlling  the  ecclesiastical  organization  and  vested 
The  Holy  all  powcrs  of  church  government  in  a  body,  called  the 
Synod  Holy  Synod,  whose  members  were  bishops  and  whose 

chief  was  a  layman,  all  chosen  by  the  tsar  himself.  No  appoint- 
ment to  ecclesiastical  office  could  henceforth  be  made  without 
the  approval  of  the  Holy  Synod ;  no  sermon  could  be  preached 
and  no  book  could  be  published  unless  it  had  received  the  sanc- 
tion of  that  august  body.  The  authority  which  the  tsar  thereby 
obtained  over  the  Russian  Church  was  as  complete  and  far- 
reaching  as  that  which  Henry  VIII  had  acquired,  two  centuries 
earher,  over  the  Anglican  Church.  The  results  have  been  in 
keeping  with  Peter's  fondest  expectations,  for  the  Orthodox 
Church  in  Russia  has  been  from  his  time  to  the  present  the  right- 
hand  support  of  absolutism.  The  tsars  have  exalted  the  Church 
as  the  fountain  of  order  and  holiness ;  as  a  veritable  ark  of  the 
covenant  have  the  clergy  magnified  and  extolled  the  autocracy. 
A  remodeling  of  the  secular  government  of  Russia  along 
autocratic  lines  was  another  achievement  of  Peter  the  Great 
which  long  endured.     At  the  head  of  the  state  was  the  tsar  or 

1  Until  late  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  metropolitan  of  Moscow  was  in  theory 
under  the  authority  of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople ;  thereafter,  through  Boris 
Godunov,  he  became  independent  with  full  consent  and  approval  of  the  whole 
Greek  Orthodox  Church  and  was  styled  the  patriarch  of  Moscow. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  373 

emperor,  possessing  absolute',  unlimited  powers.     An  ancient  as- 
sembly, or  Duma,  of  nobles,  which  had  formerly  exercised  vague 
legislative  rights,  was  practicall}-  abohshed,  its  place 
being  taken  by  an  ad\isory  Council  of  State  whose  Power 
members,  usually  noblemen,  were  selected  by  the  tsar.   °f  *^® 

■'  .      .  Tsar 

All  traces  of  local  self-government  were  similarly 
swept  away,  and  the  country  was  henceforth  administered  by  the 
tsar's  personal  agents.  To  enforce  his  autocratic  will,  a  system 
of  police  was  organized  on  a  militia  basis,  its  chiefs  being  made 
dependent  on  the  central  authority.  In  these,  as  in  all  his  other 
reforms,  the  tsar  encountered  a  good  deal  of  opposition,  and  for 
a  while  was  obliged  to  rely  largely  on  foreigners  to  carry  them  out. 
As  soon  as  possible,  however,  Peter  employed  natives,  for  it  was 
a  cardinal  point  in  his  pohcy  that  the  Russians  themselves  must 
manage  their  own  state  without  foreign  interference  or  help. 

Like  his  contemporaries  in  western  Europe,  Peter  gave  con- 
siderable attention  to  the  economic  condition  of  the  monarchy. 
He  strove,  though  often  in  a  bungling  manner,  to  pro- 
mote agriculture  and  to  improve  the  lot  of  the  peasan-  sodai  Re- 
try, who  still  constituted  the  overwhelming  bulk  of  forms  of 
the  population.     He  certainly  deprived  the  nobles  of  Qj-gat 
many  of  their  former  privileges  and  sought  to  rest  po- 
litical power  and  social  position  on  ability  rather  than  on  birth. 
He  understood  that  Russia  grievously  lacked  a  numerous  and 
prosperous  middle  class,  and  he  aimed  to  create  one  by  encourag- 
ing trade  and  industries.     His  almost  constant  participation  in 
wars,  however,  prevented  him  from  bringing  many  of  his  eco- 
nomic and  social  plans  to  fruition. 

Internal  reforms  were  but  one-half  of  Peter's  ambitious  pro- 
gram.    To   him   Russia   owes   not   only   the   abolition  of   the 
streltsi,  the  loss  of  the  independence  of  the  Church, 
the  Europeanization  of  manners  and  customs,  and  the  Foreign 
firm  estabhshment  of  autocracy,  but  also  the   pro-  PoUcy  of 
nouncement  and  enforcement  of  an  elaborate  scheme  q^.^^^ 
of  foreign  aggrandizement.     On  one  hand,  the    tsar 
showed  a  lively  interest  in  the  exploration  and  colonization  of 
Siberia  and  in  the  extension  of  Russian  dominion  around   the 
Caspian  Sea  and  towards  the  Persian  Empire.     On  the  other 
hand,  —  and  this,  for  our  purposes,  is  far  more  important,  — 


374  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

he  was  resolved  to  make  the  cultural  and  commercial  connection 
between  Russia  and  Europe  strong  and  intimate,  to  open  a  way 
to  the  west  by  gaining  outlets  on  both  the  Black  and  Baltic 
seas  —  "windows"  to  the  west,  as  he  termed  them. 

On  the  Baltic  Sea,  Sweden  blocked  him ;  toward  the  Black 
Sea,  the  Ottoman  power  hemmed  him  in.  It  was,  therefore, 
against  Sweden  and  Turkey  that  Peter  the  Great  waged  war. 
It  seemed  to  him  a  matter  of  dire  necessity  for  the  preservation 
of  European  civiUzation  in  Russia  that  he  should  defeat  one 
or  both  of  these  states.  Against  the  Turks,  as  events  proved,  he 
made  little  headway ;   against  the  Swedes  he  fared  better. 

In  order  that  we  may  understand  the  nature  of  tlie  momentous 
confhct  between  Russia  and  Sweden  in  the  first  quarter  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  it  will  be  necessary  at  this  point  to  notice 
the  parallel  development  of  Sweden. 

SWEDEN  AND   THE   CAREER  OF   CHARLES  XII 

It  will  be  recalled  that  a  century  before  Peter  the  Great,  the 
remarkable  Gustavus  Adolphus  had  aimed  to  make  the  Baltic 
a  Swedish  lake.  To  his  own  kingdom,  lying  along  the 
Sweden  a  western  shore  of  that  sea,  and  to  the  dependency  of 
Power  Finland,  he  had  added  by  conquest  the  eastern  prov- 

in  the  inccs  of  KareHa,  Ingria,  Esthonia,  and  Livonia,^  and 

Century  his  successful  interference  in  the  Thirty  Years'  War 
had  given  Sweden  possession  of  western  Pomerania 
and  the  mouths  of  the  Elbe,  Oder,  and  Weser  rivers  and  a  con- 
siderable influence  in  German  affairs.  For  many  years  after  the 
death  of  Gustavus  Adolphus,  Sweden  was  the  recognized  leader 
of  continental  Protestantism,  and  her  trade  on  the  Baltic  grew 
and  thrived.  The  exports  of  Russia  and  Poland  found  a  con- 
venient outlet  through  the  Swedish  port  of  Riga,  and  those  of 
the  northern  Germanics  were  frequently  dispatched  on  Swedish 
vessels  from  Stettin  or  Stralsund. 

Repeated  efforts  were  made  by  Denmark,  Poland,  and  Bran- 
denburg to  break  the  commercial  monopoly  which  Sweden  enjoyed 

^  Livonia,  occupied  by  Gustavus  Adolphus  during  the  Polish  War  of  1621- 
1629,  was  not  formally  relinquished  by  Poland  until  1660.  Esthonia  had  been 
conquered  by  the  Swedes  in  1561,  but  Russia  did  not  renounce  her  pretensions  to 
this  province  until  161 7. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  375 

upon  the  Baltic  and  to  deprive  her  of  her  conquests,  but  for  a 
long  time  in  vain.  Victory  continued  to  attend  Swedish  arms 
and  a  general  treaty  in  1660  confirmed  her  dominion.  At  that 
time  Sweden  was  not  only  a  military  power  of  the  first  magnitude 
but  also  one  of  the  largest  states  of  Europe,  possessing  about 
twice  as  much  area  as  present-day  Sweden.  Her  area  embraced 
a  land-surface  7000  square  miles  larger  than  the  modern  Ger- 
man Empire.  All  the  islands  and  the  greater  part  of  the  coast 
of  the  Baltic  belonged  to  her.  Stockholm,  the  capital,  lay  in 
the  very  center  of  the  empire,  whose  second  city  was  Riga, 
on  the  other  side  of  the  sea.  In  politics,  in  rehgion,  and  in  trade, 
Sweden  was  feared  and  respected. 

Yet  the  greatness  of  Sweden  in  the  seventeenth  century  was 
more  apparent  than  real.     Her  commerce  provoked  the  jealousy 
of  all  her  neighbors.     Her  dependencies  across  the 
Baltic  were  difficult  to  hold  :  peopled  by  Finns,  Rus-  «/ w^^k^ 
sians,  Poles,  Germans,  and  Danes,  their  bond   with  ness  in 
Sweden  was  essentially  artificial,   and   they  usually  pog^jtion^ 
sympathized,  naturally  enough,  with  their  sovereign's 
enemies.     They,    therefore,    imposed    on    the    mother    country 
the  duty  of  remaining  a  military  monarchy,  armed  from  head 
to  foot  for  every  possible  emergency.     For  such  a  tremendous 
destiny  Sweden  was  quite  unfitted.     Her  wide  territory  was 
very  sparsely  populated,   and  her  peasantry  were  very  poor. 
Only  the  French  alKance  gave  her  soHd  backing  in  the  Germanies, 
and,  with  the  decline  of  the  fortunes  of  Louis  XIV  and  the  rise 
of  Prussia  and  Russia,  she  was  bound  to  lose  her  leadership  in 
the  North. 

To  the  fate  of  Sweden,  her  rulers  in  the  seventeenth  century 
contributed  no  small  share.  Nearly  all  of  them  were  born  fight- 
ers and  nearly  all  of  them  were  neglectful  of  home  interests 
and  of  the  works  of  peace.  The  miHtary  instincts  of  the  Swedish 
kings  not  only  sacrificed  thousands  of  Kves  that  were  urgently 
needed  in  building  up  their  country  and  cost  the  kingdom  enor- 
mous sums  of  money  but  likewise  impaired  commerce,  surrounded 
the  empire  with  a  broad  belt  of  desolated  territory,  and  implanted 
an  ineradicable  hatred  in  every  adjacent  state.  Then,  too, 
the  extravagance  and  negligence  of  the  sovereigns  led  to  chaos 
in  domestic  government.     Taxes  were  heavy  and  badly  appor- 


376  HISTORY   OF    MODERN   EUROPE 

tioned.  The  nobles  recovered  many  of  their  political  privileges. 
The  royal  power  steadily  dwindled  away  at  the  very  time  when 
it  was  most  needed  ;  and  a  selfish,  grasping  aristocracy  hastened 
their  country's  ruin.^ 

At  length,  in  1697,  when  Charles  XII,  a  boy  of  fifteen  years, 
ascended  the  throne  of  Sweden,  the  neighboring  Powers  thought 
Coalition  ^^^  time  had  arrived  to  partition  his  territories  among 
against  themselves.     Tsar  Peter,  while  returning  home  the 

following  year  from  his  travels  abroad,  had  discussed 
with  Augustus  II,  elector  of  Saxony  and  king  of  Poland,  a  plan 
which  the  latter  had  formed  for  the  dismemberment  of  the 
Swedish  Empire :  Poland  was  to  recover  Livonia  and  annex 
Esthonia ;  Russia  was  to  obtain  Ingria  and  KareKa  and  thereby 
a  port  on  the  Baltic;  Brandenburg  was  to  occupy  western 
Pomerania ;  and  Denmark  was  to  take  possession  of  Holstein 
and  the  mouths  of  the  Elbe  and  Weser.  Charles  XII  was  to 
retain  only  his  kingdom  in  the  Scandinavian  peninsula  and  the 
grand  duchy  of  Finland.  At  the  last  moment  Brandenburg 
balked,  but  Saxony,  Denmark,  and  Russia  signed  the  nefarious 
alliance  in  1699.  The  alhes  expected  quick  and  decisive  vic- 
tory. All  western  and  southern  Europe  was  on  the  verge  of  a 
great  struggle  for  the  Spanish  inheritance  and  would  clearly 
be  unable  to  prevent  them  from  despoihng  Sweden. 

But  the  alhes  grossly  underrated  their  foe.  Charles  XII 
was  a  mere  boy,  but  precocious,  gloomy,  and  sensitive,  and 
,,.,.  endowed  with  all  the  martial  determination  and  hero- 

Military  .  tt      i      •       i  t  •        i 

Exploits  ism  of  his  ancestors.  He  desired  nothing  better  than 
of  Charles  ^q  j^g^t  against  overwhelming  odds,  and  the  fury  of 
the  youthful  commander  soon  earned  him  the  sobri- 
quet of  the  "madman  of  the  North."  The  alHance  of  1699  pre- 
cipitated the  Great  Northern  War  which  was  to  last  until  1721 
and  slowly,  but  no  less  inevitably,  lower  Sweden  to  the  position 
of  a  third-rate  power.  It  was  amid  the  most  spectacular  exploits 
of  the  boy-king  that  the  ruin  of  Sweden  was  accomplished.  It 
was  a  grander  but  more  tragic  fate  than  in  the  same  period 
befell  Spain. 

Charles  XII  did  not  give  the  allies  time  to  unite.     Hurriedly 

'  A  reaction  appeared  under  the  capable  Charles  XI  (1660-1697),  but  its  fruits 
were  completely  lost  by  his  son  and  successor,  Charles  XII. 


DYNASTIC  AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  377 

crossing  the  straits,  he  invaded  Denmark,  whose  terrified  king 
I")romptly  signed  a  treaty  with  him  (1700),  paying  a  large  in- 
demnity and  engaging  to  keep  the  peace  in  future. 

Thence  Charles  hastened  across  the  Baltic  to  Esthonia  in 
order  to  deal  with  the  invading  Russians.  At  Narva  he  met  and 
annihilated  their  army.  Then  he  turned  southward,  clearing 
Livonia  and  Lithuania  of  Poles,  Saxons,  and  Russians. 

Into  the  very  heart  of  Poland  he  carried  the  war,  possessing 
himself  of  both  Warsaw  and  Cracow.  He  obliged  the  Polish 
Diet  to  dethrone  Augustus  and  to  accept  a  king  of  his  own  choice 
in  the  person  of  a  certain  Stanislaus  Leszczjmski  (1704). 

All  these  things  had  been  done  by  a  young  man  between  the 
age  of  seventeen  and  twenty-two.  It  was  quite  natural  that  he 
should  be  puffed  up  with  pride  in  his  ability  and  successes.  It 
was  almost  as  natural  that,  hardened  at  an  early  age  to  the  hor- 
rors of  war,  he  should  become  increasingly  callous  and  cruel. 
Many  instructions  the  impulsive  youth  sent  out  over  conquered 
districts  in  Russia,  Poland,  and  Saxony  "to  slay,  bum,  and  de- 
stroy." "Better  that  the  innocent  suffer  than  that  the  guilty 
escape"  was  his  favorite  adage. 

Small  wonder,  then,  that  neither  Peter  the  Great  nor  the 
Elector  Augustus  would  abandon  the  struggle.  While  Charles 
was  overrunning  Poland,  Peter  was  reorganizing  his  army  and 
occupying  KareHa  and  Ingria ;  and  when  the  Swedish  king  re- 
turned to  engage  the  Russians,  Augustus  drove  out  Stanislaus 
and  regained  the  croAvn  of  Poland.  Yet  Charles,  with  an  unrea- 
soning stubbornness,  would  not  perceive  that  the  time  had 
arrived  for  terminating  the  conflict  with  a  few  concessions. 
Russia  at  that  time  asked  only  a  port  on  the  Gulf  of  Finland  as 
the  price  of  an  alKance  against  Poland. 

To  all  entreaties  for  peace,  Charles  XII  turned  a   deaf   ear, 
and  pressed  the  war  in  Russia.     Unable  to  take  Moscow,  he 
turned  southward  in  order  to  effect  a  juncture  with 
some  rebellious  Cossacks,  but  met  the  army  of  Peter  poitav" 
the    Great   at   Poltava    (1709).     Poltava   marks   the   (1709): 
decisive  triumph  of  Russia  over  Sweden.     The  Swe-  charfes°xii 
dish  army  was  destroyed,  only  a  small  number  being 
able  to  accompany  the  flight  of  their  king  across  the  southern 
Russian  frontier  into  Turkish  territory. 


378  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Then  Charles  stirred  up  the  Turks  to  attack  the  tsar,  but 
from  the  new  contest  he  was  himself  unable  to  profit.  Peter 
bought  peace  with  the  Ottoman  government  by  re-ceding  the 
town  of  Azov,  and  the  latter  gradually  tired  of  their  guest's  con- 
tinual and  frantic  clamor  for  war.  After  a  sojourn  of  over 
five  years  in  Ottoman  lands,  Charles  suddenly  and  unexpectedly 
appeared,  with  but  a  single  attendant,  at  Stralsund,  which 
by  that  time  was  all  that  remained  to  him  outside  of  Sweden 
and  Finland. 

Still,  however,  the  war  dragged  on.  The  alUes  grew  in  num- 
bers and  in  demands.  Peter  the  Great  and  Augustus  were 
.  again  joined  by  the  Danish  king.     Great  Britain,  Han- 

and  Death  over,  and  Prussia,  all  covetous  of  Swedish  trade  or 
of  Charles  Swedish  territory,  were  now  members  of  the  coaKtion. 
Charles  XII  stood  like  adamant :  he  would  retain  all 
or  he  would  lose  all.  So  he  stood  until  the  last.  It  was  while 
he  was  directing  an  invasion  of  Norway  that  the  brilhant  but 
ill-balanced  Charles  lost  his  Hfe  (1718),  being  then  but  thirty-six 
years  of  age. 

Peace  which  had  been  impossible  during  the  hfetime  of  Charles, 
became  a  reahty  soon  after  his  death.  It  certainly  came  none 
Decline  of  too  soon  for  the  exhausted  and  enfeebled  condition  of 
Sweden  Sweden.  By  the  treaties  of  Stockholm  (1719  and 
1720),  Sweden  resigned  all  her  German  holdings  except  a  small 
district  of  western  Pomerania  including  the  town  of  Stralsund. 
Denmark  received  Holstein  and  a  money  indemnity.  Hanover 
gained  the  mouths  of  the  Elbe  and  Weser ;  Prussia,  the  mouth 
of  the  Oder  and  the  important  city  of  Stettin.  Augustus  was 
restored  to  the  Pohsh  throne,  though  without  territorial  gain. 
Great  Britain,  Denmark,  and  Prussia  became  the  principal 
commercial  heirs  of  Sweden. 

The  treaty  of  Nystad  (1721)  was  the  turning  point  for  Russia, 
for  thereby  she  acquired  from  Sweden  full  sovereignty  over 
not  only  Karelia  and  Ingria  but  the  important  Baltic 
NjTslad"  provinces  of  Esthonia  and  Livonia  and  a  narrow  strip 
(1721):  of  southern  Finland  including  the  strong  fortress  of 

thTfiaitic  Viborg.  Peter  the  Great  had  realized  his  ambition  of 
affording  his  country  a  "window  to  the  west."  On  the 
waste  marshes  of  the  Neva  he  succeeded  with  enormous  effort 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  379 

and  sacrifice  of  life  in  building  a  great  city  which  might  be  a  center 
of  commerce  and  a  bond  of  connection  between  Russia  and  the 
western  world.     He  named  his  new  city  St.  Peters- 
burg  ^  and  to  it  he  transferred  his  government   from 
Moscow.     Russia  supplanted  Sweden  in    the  leadership  of  the 
Baltic  and  assumed  a  place  among  the  Powers  of  Europe. 

Peter  the  Great  did  not  reahze  his  other  ambition  of  secur- 
ing a  Russian  port  on  the  Black  Sea.  Although  he  captured 
and  held  Azov  for  a  time,  he  was  obUged  to  rehnquish  it,  as  we 
have  seen,  in  order  to  prevent  the  Turks  from  joining  hands 
with  Charles  XII. 

Nevertheless,  when  Peter  died  in  1725,  he  left  his  empire 
a  compact  state,  well-organized,  and  well-administered,  west- 
ernized at  least  superficially,  and  ready  to  play  a  con-  character 
spicuous  role  in  the  international  pohtics  of  Europe,  of  Peter 
The  man  who  succeeded  in  doing  all  these  things  has 
been  variously  estimated.     By  some  he  has  been  represented 
as  a  monster  of  cruelty  and  a  murderer,^  by  others  as  a  demon  of 
the  grossest  sensuality,  by  still  others  as  a  great  national  hero. 
Probably  he  merited  all  such  opinions.     But,  above  all,  he  was 
a  genius  of  fierce  energy  and  will,  who  toiled  always  for  what  he 
considered  to  be  the  welfare  of  his  country. 

CATHERINE  THE  GREAT:  THE  DEFEAT  OF  TURKEY 
AND  THE  DISMEMBERMENT  OF  POLAND 

It  is  hardly  possible  to  feel  much  respect  for  the  character 
of  the  Russian  rulers  who  succeeded  Peter  the  Great  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  Most  of  them  were  women  with  loose 
morals  and  ugly  manners.  But  they  had  Uttle  to  fear  from 
Sweden,  which,  utterly  exhausted,  was  now  on  a  steady  decline ; 
and  domestic  difficulties  both  in  Poland  and  in  Turkey  removed 
any  apprehension  of  attacks  from  those  countries.     In  policies 

1  Known  generally  in  the  Teutonic  form  "  St.  Petersburg  "  from  its  foundation 
until  the  War  of  the  Nations  in  1914,  when  the  Slavic  form  of  "  Petrograd  " 
was  substituted. 

2  Peter  had  his  son  and  heir,  the  Grand  Duke  Alexius,  put  to  death  because  he 
did  not  sympathize  with  his  reforms.  The  tsar's  other  punishments  often  as- 
sumed a  most  revolting  and  disgusting  character. 


380  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

of  internal  government,  Peter  had  blazed  a  trail  so  clear  and 
unmistakable  that  one  would  have  difficulty  in  losing  it. 

Of  those  female  sovereigns  of  the  Russian  Empire,  the  most 

notable  was  Catherine  II,  usually  called  Catherine 

of  «ie*^  ^'^      ^^^^  Great  (1762-1796).     By  birth  she  was  not  even  a 

Tsarina  Russian,  but  a  princess  of  Protestant  Germany,  whom 

jj^   enne      (iynastic  considerations  made  the  wife  of  the  heir  to 

the  Russian  crown. ^ 

No  sooner  was  she  in  her  adopted  country  than  she  set  to 
work  to  ingratiate  herself  with  its  people.  She  learned  the 
Russian  language.  She  outwardly  conformed  to  the  Orthodox 
Church.  She  slighted  her  German  relatives  and  surrounded 
herself  with  Russians.  She  established  a  reputation  for  quick 
wit  and  lofty  patriotism.  So  great  was  her  success  that  when  her 
half -insane  husband  ascended  the  throne  as  Peter  III  in  1762, 
the  people  looked  to  her  rather  than  to  him  as  the  real  ruler, 
and  before  the  year  was  over  she  had  managed  to  make  away  with 
him  and  to  become  sovereign  in  name  as  well  as  in  fact.  For 
thirty-four  years  Catherine  was  tsarina  of  Russia.  Immoral 
to  the  last,  without  conscience  or  scruple,  she  ruled  the  country 
with  a  firm  hand  and  consummated  the  work  of  Peter  the  Great. 

In  the  administrative  system  Catherine  introduced  the 
"governments"  and  "districts,"  divisions  and  subdivisions  of 
Russia,  over  which  were  placed  respectively  governors 
ministration  ^^^  vicc-govemors,  all  appointed  by  the  central  au- 
thority. To  the  ecclesiastical  alterations  of  Peter,  she 
added  the  secularization  of  church  property,  thereby  making 
the  clergy  distinctly  dependent  upon  her  bounty  and  strengthen- 
ing the  autocracy. 

The  tsarina  had  some  personal  interest  in  the  literary  and 
scientific  progress  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  was  deter- 
jjgj.  mined  to  make  Russia  appear  cultured  in  the  eyes  of 

Patronage      wcstem  Europc.     She  corresponded  with  Voltaire  and 

earning  j^^j^y  other  philosophers  and  learned  men  of  the  time. 
She  pensioned  Diderot,  the  author  of  the  great  Encyclopagdia, 
and  invited  scholars  to  her  court.  She  posed  as  the  friend  of 
higher  education. 

1  The  marriage  was  arranged  by  Frederick  the  Great  in  order  to  minimize 
Austrian  influence  at  Pelrograd. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  381 

Of  the  three  foreign  countries  which  in  the  eighteenth  century 
blocked    the   western   expansion   of   Russia,    Sweden  had   been 
humbled  by  Peter  in  the  Great  Northern  War  and  the  jj^j. 
treaty  of  Nystad.     Poland  and  Turkey  remained  to  Foreign 
be  dealt  with  by  Catherine  the  Great.     Let  us  see     °  *^^ 
what  had  kitely  transpired  to  render  tliis  task  comparatively 
easy  for  the  tsarina. 

Poland  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  geo- 
graphically a  large  state,   but  a  variety  of  circumstances  con- 
tributed to  render  it  weak  and  unstable.     In  the  first 
place,  it  was  without  natural  boundaries  or  adequate  in  the 
means  of  defense.     To  the  west  it  was  separated  from  Eighteenth 
Prussia  and  Austria  by  an  artificial  line  drawn  through 
level  plains  or  over  low-hdng  hills.     To  the  south  a  fluctuating 
frontier,  fixed  usually  along  the  Dniester  River,  set  it  off  from 
the  Ottoman  Empire.     The  fertile  valleys  of  the  Dnieper,  to 
the  east,  and  of  the  Diina,  to  the  north,  were  shared  by  Russia 
and  Poland.     No  chains  of  mountains  and  no  strongly  fortified 
places  protected  the  Polish  people  from   Germans,   Turks,  or 
Russians. 

Nor  was  this  wade,  but  indefensible,  territory  inhabited  by  a 
single  homogeneous  people.  The  Poles  themselves,  centering 
in  the  western  cities  of  Warsaw  and  Cracow,  constituted  a  ma- 
jority of  the  population,  but  the  Lithuanians,  a  kindred  Slavic 
folk,  covered  the  east-central  part  of  the  kingdom  and  a  large 
number  of  Cossacks  and  "Little  Russians"  ^  lived  in  the  extreme 
east,  while  along  the  northern  and  western  borders  were  settle- 
ments of  Germans  and  Swedes.  Between  the  Poles  and  the 
Lithuanians  existed  a  long-standing  feud,  and  the  Germans  re- 
garded all  the  Slavs  with  ill-disguised  contempt. 

Religion  added  its  share  to  the  dissension  created  by  race  and 
language  within  Poland.  The  Poles  and  most  of  the  Lithu- 
anians were  stanch  Roman  Catholics.  Other  Lithuanians  — • 
especially  the  great  nobles  — •  together  with  the  Russians  and 
Cossacks  adhered  to  the  Greek  Orthodox  faith,  while  Lutheran 
Protestantism  was  upheld  by  the  western  settlements  of  Swedes 
and  Germans.  The  Dissenters,  as  the  Orthodox  and  Protestants 
were  called,  demanded  from  the  Catholic  majority  a  toleration 

1  Ruthenians. 


382  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  a  freedom  of  worship  which  at  that  time  existed  in  no  other 
country  of  Europe.  When  it  was  not  forthcoming,  they  appealed 
to  foreign  Powers  —  the  Lutherans  to  Prussia,  the  Orthodox  to 
Russia. 

Worst  of  all  were  the  social  conditions  in  Poland.     By  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  towns  had  sunk  into  relative  insignifi- 
cance, leaving  Poland  without  a  numerous  or  wealthy 

Wretched 

Social  middle  class.     Of  the  other  classes,  the  great  nobles 

Conditions     qj-  magnates  owned  the  land,  lived  in  luxury,  selfishly 

in  Poland        ,      ■,      ,  ^  ,     .  .  ,     •      1        1 

looked  out  for  their  own  interests,  and  jealously 
played  poKtics,  while  the  mass  of  the  nation  were  degraded  into 
a  state  of  serfdom  and  wretchedness  that  would  be  difhcult  to 
parallel  elsewhere  in  Europe.  With  a  grasping,  haughty  no- 
bility on  one  hand,  and  an  oppressed,  ignorant  peasantry  on 
the  other,  social  soHdarity,  the  best  guarantee  of  poHtical  inde- 
pendence, was  entirely  lacking. 

An   enHghtened   progressive    government    might   have    done 

something  to  remedy  the  social  ills,  but  of    all  governments 

that  the  world  has  ever  seen,  the  most  ineffectual  and 

of  Polish       pernicious  was  the  Polish.     Since  the  sixteenth  cen- 

PoUticai         tury,  the  monarchy  had  been  elective,  with  the  result 

Institutions  .  .  .  ._  ,, 

that  the  reign  of  every  sovereign  was  disfigured  by 
foreign  intrigues  and  domestic  squabbles  over  the  choice  of  his 
successor,  and  also  that  the  noble  electors  were  able  not  only 
to  secure  Hberal  bribes  but  to  wring  from  the  elect  such  conces- 
sions as  gradually  reduced  the  kingship  to  an  ornamental  figure- 
head. Most  of  the  later  kings  were  foreigners  who  used  what 
little  power  was  left  to  them  in  furtherance  of  their  native  inter- 
ests rather  than  of  the  welfare  of  Poland.  Thus  the  kings  in 
the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  were  German  electors  of 
Saxony,  who  owed  their  new  position  to  the  interested  friendship 
of  Austria,  Prussia,  or  Russia,  and  to  the  large  sums  of  money 
which  they  lavished  upon  the  Polish  magnates ;  these  same 
Saxon  rulers  cheerfully  applied  the  Polish  resources  to  their 
German  policies. 

Another  absurdity  of  the  PoHsh  constitution  was  the  famous 
"'liberum  veto"  a  kind  of  gentlemen's  agreement  among  the  mag- 
nates, whereby  no  law  whatsoever  could  be  enacted  by  the  Diet  if 
a  single  member  felt  it  was  prejudicial  to  his  interests,  and  ob- 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  383 

jected.  In  the  course  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  principle 
of  the  lihcriim  veto  had  been  so  far  extended  as  to  recognize  the 
lawful  right  of  any  one  of  the  ten  thousand  noblemen  of  Poland 
to  refuse  to  obey  a  law  which  he  had  not  approved.  This 
amounted  to  anarchism.  And  anarchism,  however  beautiful 
it  might  appear  as  an  ideal,  was  hardly  a  trustworthy  weapon 
with  which  to  oppose  the  greedy,  hard-hearted,  despotic  mon- 
archs  who  governed  all  the  surrounding  countries. 

The  Ottoman  Empire  was  not  in  such  sore  straits  as  Poland, 
but  its  power  and  prestige  were  obviously  waning.  In  another 
place  we  have  rexaewed  the  achievements  of  the  Turks   ^     ^ 

^  .  .  Steady 

in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  —  how  they  Decline  of 
overran  the  Balkan  peninsula,   captured  Constanti-  ottoman 
nople,  put  an  end  to  the  ancient  Grasco-Roman  Em-  during 
pire,  and  under  Suleiman  the  Magnificent  extended  Seventeenth 
their  conquests  along   the  northern   coast  of  Africa 
and  in  Europe  across  the  Danube  into  the  very  heart  of  Hun- 
gary.    Although  the  sea-power  of  the  Turks  suffered  a  serious 
reverse  at  Lepanto  (1571),  their  continued  land  advances  pro- 
voked in   Christendom   the   liveliest   apprehension   throughout 
the    seventeenth    century.     After   a    twenty-five-years    conflict 
they  took  Crete  from  Venice.     They  subjugated   to   their  do- 
minion the  Tatars  and  Russians  immediately  north  of  the  Black 
Sea.     They  exacted  homage  from  the  princes  of  Rumania  and 
Transylvania.     They  annexed  Hungary.     For  a  time  they  re- 
ceived tribute  from  the  king  of  Poland.     In  1683  they  laid  siege 
to  the  city  of  Vienna  and  would  have  taken  it  had  not  the  pa- 
triotic PoUsh  monarch,  John  Sobieski,  brought  timely  aid  to  the 
beleaguered  Austrians.     That  was  the  high-water  mark  of  the 
Mohammedan  advance  in  Europe. 

Thenceforth  the  Turkish  boundaries  gradually  receded. 
An  alliance  of  Venice,  Poland,  the  pope,  and  Austria  waged 
long  and  arduous  warfare  with  the  Ottomans,  and  the  resulting 
treaty  of  Karlowdtz,  signed  at  the  very  close  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  gave  the  greater  part  of  Hungary,  including  Transyl- 
vania, to  the  Austrian  Habsburgs,  extended  the  southern  bound- 
ary of  Poland  to  the  Dniester  River,  and  surrendered  important 
trading  centers  on  the  Dalmatian  and  Greek  coasts  to  the  Vene- 
tians.    Two  subsequent  wars  between  the  sultan  and  the  Habs- 


384  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

burgs  definitely  freed  the  whole  of  Hungary  from  the  Ottoman 
yoke. 

The  reasons  for  the  wane  of  Turkey's  power  are  scarcely  to 
be  sought  in  the  inherent  strength  of  her  neighbors,  for,  with 
the  possible  exception  of  Austria  and  Russia,  they  were  notori- 
ously weak  and  had  seldom  been  able  or  willing  to  work  together 
in  behalf  of  any  common  cause.  The  real  reasons  lay  rather  in 
the  character  and  nature  of  the  Turkish  power  itself.  Domestic, 
not  foreign,  difficulties  prepared  the  way  for  future  disasters. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Turks  never  constituted 

a  majority  of   the  population   of   their   European  possessions. 

They  were  a  mere  body  of  conquerors,  who  in  frenzies 

Nature  r       t    •  .    /        ,        .  ..,.,, 

of  the  of  reugious  or  martial  enthusiasm,  inspired  with  the 

Turkish         [^j^q^  ^\-^^^  Divine  Providence  was  using  them  as  agents 

Conquests  00 

for  the  spread  of  Mohammedanism,  had  fought  val- 
iantly with  the  sword  or  cunningly  taken  advantage  of  their 
enemies'  quarrels  to  plant  over  wide  areas  the  crescent  in  place 
of  the  cross.  In  the  conquered  regions,  the  native  Christian 
peoples  were  reduced  to  serfdom,  and  the  Turkish  conquerors 
became  great  landholders  and  the  official  class.  To  extend, 
even  to  maintain,  such  an  artificial  order  of  things,  the  Turks 
would  be  obKged  to  keep  their  military  organization  always  at 
the  highest  pitch  of  excellence  and  to  preserve  their  government 
from  weakness  and  corruption.  In  neither  of  these  respects  did 
the  Turks  ultimately  succeed. 

The  sultans  of  the  eighteenth  century  were  not  of  the  stuff 
of  which  a  Suleiman  the  Magnificent  had  been  made.     To  the 
grim  risks  of  battle  they  preferred  the  cushioned  ease 
in  the  of  the  palace,  and  all  their  powers  of  administration 

Turkish  g^j^^^  government  were  quite  consumed  in  the  manage- 
ment of  the  household  and  the  harem.  Actual  author- 
ity was  gradually  transferred  to  the  Divan,  or  board  of  minis- 
ters, whose  appointments  or  dismissals  were  the  results  of  palace 
intrigues,  sometimes  petty  but  more  often  bloody.  Corruption 
ate  its  way  through  the  entire  office-holding  element  of  the  Otto- 
man state  :  positions  were  bought  and  sold  from  the  Divan  down 
to  the  obscure  village,  and  office  was  held  to  exist  primarily  for 
financial  profit  and  secondarily  as  a  means  of  oppressing  the 
subject  people. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  385 

The  army,  on  which  so  much  m  the  Turkish  state  depended, 
naturally  reflected  the  demoralized  condition  of  the  government. 
While  Peter  the  Great  was  organizing  a  powerful  army  in  Russia, 
and  Frederick  the  Great  was  perfecting  the  Prussian  military 
machine,  the  Ottoman  army  steadily  decKned.  It  failed  to 
keep  pace  with  the  development  of  tactics  and  of  firearms  in 
western  Europe,  and  fell  behind  the  times.  The  all-prevalent 
corruption  ruined  its  disciphne,  and  its  regularly  organized 
portion  —  the  ''janissaries"  —  became  the  masters  rather  than 
the  servants  of  the  sultans  and  of  the  whole  Turkish  govern- 
ment. 

It  was  the  fortune  of  the  Russian  tsarina  —  Catherine  the 
Great  —  to  appreciate  the  real  weakness  of  both  Turkey  and 
Poland  and  to  turn  her  neighbors'  distress  to  the  profit  of  her 
own  country. 

No  sooner  had  Catherine  secured  the  Russian  crown  and  by 
her  inactivity  permitted  Frederick  the  Great  to  bring  the  Seven 
Years'  War  to  a  successful  issue,  than  the  death  of  Catherines 
Augustus  III,  elector  of  Saxony  and  king  of  Poland,  interference 
gave  her  an  opportunity  to  interfere  in  PoHsh  affairs. 
She  was  not  content  with  the  Saxon  line  which  was  more  or  less 
under  Austrian  influence,  and,  with  the  astute  aid  of  Frederick, 
she  induced  the  Polish  nobles  to  elect  one  of  her  own  courtiers 
and  favorites,  Stanislaus  Poniatowski,  who  thus  in  1764  became 
the  last  king  of  an  independent  Poland. 

With  the  accession  of  Stanislaus,  the  predominance  of  Russia 
was  fully  established  in  Poland.  Russia  entered  into  an  execrable 
agreement  with  Prussia  and  Austria  to  uphold  the  anarchical 
constitution  of  the  unhappy  and  victimized  country.  When 
patriotic  Poles  made  efforts  —  as  they  now  frequently  did  —  to 
reform  their  government,  to  abohsh  the  liberum  veto,  and  to 
strengthen  the  state,  they  found  their  attempts  thwarted  by 
the  allies  either  by  force  of  arms  or  by  bribes  of  money.  The 
racial  animosities  and  the  religious  difl'erences  within  Poland  af- 
forded sufficient  pretexts  for  the  intervention  of  the  neighboring 
Powers,  especially  Prussia  and  Russia. 

A  popular  insurrection  of  Polish  Catholics  against  the  intol- 
erable meddling  of  foreigners  was  crushed  by  the  troops  of 
Catherine,  with  the  single  result  that  the  Russians,  in  pursuing 

2C 


386  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

some  fleeing  insurgents  across  the  southern  frontier,  violated 
Turkish  territory  and  precipitated  a  war  between  the  Ottoman 
Empire  and  Russia. 

This  Turkish  War  lasted  from  1768  to  1774.     The  Ottoman 

government  was  profoundly  alarmed  by  the  Russian  foreign 

policy,  believing  that  the  intrigues  in  Poland  would 

Catherine's     ^      ,    /'  ^       .  ,     ,  ^  t^         . 

War  with  end  m  the  annexation  01  that  state  to  Russia  and  the 
*^fi8^"'^^^'  consequent  upsetting  of  the  balance  of  power  in  the 
East,  and  that,  Poland  once  being  disposed  of,  the  turn 
of  Turkey  would  come  next.  The  Turks,  moreover,  were  egged 
on  by  the  French  government,  which,  anxious  also  to  preserve 
the  balance  of  power  and  to  defend  the  liberties  of  Poland,  was 
too  financially  embarrassed  itself  to  undertake  a  great  war 
against  Prussia  and  Russia. 

This  war  between  Russia  and  Turkey  fully  confirmed  the 
behef  that  the  power  of  the  latter  was  waning.  The  Ottoman 
troops,  badly  armed  and  badly  led,  suffered  a  series  of  reverses. 
The  Russians  again  occupied  Azov,  which  Peter  the  Great  had 
been  compelled  to  relinquish ;  they  overran  Moldavia  and  Wal- 
lachia ;  they  seized  Bucharest ;  and  they  seemed  likely  to  cross 
the  Danube.  Catherine  went  so  far  as  to  fan  a  revolt  among 
the  Greek  subjects  of  the  sultan. 

At  length,  in  1774,  the  treaty  of  Kuchuk  Kainarji  was  con- 
cluded between  the  belligerents.  It  was  most  important  in 
marking  the  southern  extension  of  Russia.  By  its 
Kuchuk  provisions,  (i)  Turkey  formally  ceded  Azov  and  adja- 
Kainarji  ^.gj-^^  territory  to  Russia  and  renounced  sovereignty 
Russia  over  all  land  north  of  the  Black  Sea;    (2)  Turkey  re- 

on  the  covered  Wallachia,  Moldavia,  and  Greece,  on  condi- 

Black  Sea 

tion  that  they  should  be  better  governed ;  (3)  Russia 
obtained  the  right  of  free  navigation  for  her  merchant  ships  in 
Turkish  waters ;  and  (4)  Russia  was  recognized  as  the  protector 
of  certain  churches  in  the  city  of  Constantinople. 

Within  a  few  years  after  the  signature  of  the  treaty  of  Kuchuk 
Kainarji,  Catherine  estabhshed  Russian  control  over  the  various 
Tatar  principalities  north  of  the  Black  Sea,  whose  sovereignty 
Turkey  had  renounced,  and  by  a  supplementary  agreement 
in  1792,  the  Dniester  River  was  fixed  upon  as  the  boundary  be- 
tween the  Russian  and  Ottoman  empires. 


DYNASTIC   AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  387 

The  Turkish  poHcy  of  Catherine  the  Great  bore  three  significant 
results.  In  the  first  place,  Russia  acquired  a  natural  boundary 
in  southern  Europe,  and  became  the  chief  Power  on  the  Black 
Sea,  whence  her  ships  might  pass  freely  through  the  Bosphorus 
and  the  Dardanelles  out  into  the  Mediterranean  to  trade  with 
western  Europe.  Russia's  second  "window  to  the  west"  was 
gained.  Then,  in  the  second  place,  Russia  was  henceforth  looked 
upon  as  the  natural  ally  and  friend  of  oppressed  nationahties 
within  the  Turkish  Empire.  Finally,  the  special  clause  conferring 
on  Russia  the  protectorate  of  certain  churches  in  Constantinople 
afforded  her  a  pretext  for  a  later  claim  to  protect  Christians 
throughout  the  Ottoman  state  and  consequently  to  interfere 
incessantly  in  Turkish  affairs.  Since  the  treaty  of  Kuchuk 
Kainarji,  Turkey  has  dechned  with  ever-increasing  rapidity, 
and  Russia  has  become  an  eager  candidate  for  a  liberal  share  of 
the  spoils. 

Even  while  the  Turkish  War  was  in  progress,  Catherine 
the  Great  had  not  lost  sight  of  her  Pohsh  pohcy.  Frederick 
of  Prussia  had  doubtless  hoped  that  she  would,  in  order  ^   ,    . 

.  Cathenne 

that  he  might  have  a  free  rem  to  direct  a  distnbution  and  the 
of  territory  entirely  satisfactory   to  himself  and   to  ^fp'V°". 
Prussia.     But  the  wily  tsarina  was  never  so  immersed 
in  other  matters  that  she  neglected  Russian  interests  in  Poland. 
In  1772,  therefore,  she  joined  with  Frederick  and  with  p.j.g^ 
Maria  Theresa  of  Austria  in  making  the  first  partition  Partition, 
of  Poland.     Russia  took  all  the  country  which  lay  ^^^^ 
east  of  the  Duna  and  Dnieper  rivers.     Prussia  took  West  Prussia 
except  the  town  of  Danzig.     Austria  took  Galicia  and  the  city 
of  Cracow.     In  all,  Poland  was  deprived  of  about  a  fourth  of 
her  territory. 

The  partition  of  1772  sobered  the  Polish  people  and  brought 
them  to  a  full  realizing  sense  of  the  necessity  of  radical  political 
reform.     But  the  shameful  and  hypocritical  attitude  gecond 
of  the  neighboring  sovereigns  continued  to  render  their  Partition, 
every  effort  abortive.     For  another  twenty-one  years  ^^^^ 
the  wretched  country  struggled  on,  a  victim  of  selfish  foreign 
tutelage.     Although  both   Frederick  and   Maria  Theresa  died 
in  the  interval,  their  successors  proved  themselves  quite  as  will- 
ing to  cooperate  with  the  implacable  tsarina.     In  1793  Russia 


388  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  Prussia  effected  the  second  partition  of  Poland,  and  in  1795, 
following  a  last  desperate  attempt  of  the  Poles  to  establish  a 
new  government,  they  admitted  Austria  to  a  share  in  the  final 
dismemberment  of  the  unhappy  country.  Desperately  did 
Third  and  ^^^  brave  Kosciuszko  try  to  stem  the  tide  of  invasion 
Last  Par-       which  poured  in  from  all  sides.     His  few  forces,  in 

ion,  1795  gpjj^g  (3f  great  valor,  were  no  match  for  the  veteran 
allies,  and  the  defense  was  vain.  "Freedom  shrieked  when 
Kosciuszko  fell."  King  Stanislaus  Poniatowski  resigned  his 
crown  and  betook  himself  to  Petrograd.  Poland  ceased  to  exist 
as  an  independent  state. 

By  the  partitions  of  1793  and  1795,  Austria  obtained  the 
upper  valley  of  the  Vistula,  and  Prussia  the  lower,  including  the 
city  of  Warsaw,  while  the  rest  —  the  major  share  —  went  to 
Russia.  Little  Russia  (Ruthenia)  and  approximately  all  of 
Lithuania  thus  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  tsarina.  Russia 
thenceforth  bordered  immediately  on  Prussia  and  Austria  and 
became  geographically  a  vital  member  of  the  European  family 
of  nations. 

Catherine  the  Great  survived  the  third  and  final  partition  of 
Poland  but  a  year,  dying  in  1796.  If  it  can  be  said  of  Peter 
that  he  made  Russia  a  European  Power,  it  can  be  affirmed  with 
equal  truth  that  Catherine  made  Russia  a  Great  Power.  The 
eighteenth  century  had  witnessed  a  marvelous  growth  of  Russia 
in  Europe.  She  had  acquired  territory  and  a  capital  on  the 
Baltic.  She  had  secured  valuable  ports  on  the  Black  Sea.  She 
had  pushed  her  boundaries  westward  into  the  very  center  of 
the  Continent. 

The  rise  of  Russia  was  at  the  expense  of  her  neighbors. 
Sweden  had  surrendered  her  eastern  provinces  and  lost  her  con- 
trol of  the  Baltic.  Turkey  had  abandoned  her  monopoly  of  the 
shores  and  trade  of  the  Black  Sea.  Poland  had  disappeared 
from  the  map. 


DYNASTIC  AND   COLONIAL   RIVALRY  389 

THE   ROM.\NOV   FAMILY:    RUSSIAN   SOVEREIGNS   (1613-1915) 

(i)  MiCHAiiL  (1613-1645),  founder  of  the  Romanov  dynasty 
(2)  Alexius  (1645-1676) 


(3)  Theodore  II  (4)  Ivan  V  Sophia  (4)  Peter  I  m.  (5)  Catherine  I 

(1676-1682)  (16S2-1689)     (Regent  1682-16S9)  (1682-1725)    I  (1725-1727) 


Catherine,  (7)  Anne         Alexius  Anna,  (9)  Elizabeth 

duchess  of  (173C3-1740)  I  duchess  of  (1741-1762) 

Mecklenburg  Holstein 

I  I                            I 

Anna,  (6)  Peter  II   (lo)  Peter  III  m.  (11)  Catherine  II 

duchess  of  (1727-1730)               (1762)       I                (1762-1796) 
Brunswick 

I  I 

(8)  Ivan  VI  (12)  Paul  (1796-1801) 

(1740-1741)  I 

I \ 1 

(13)  Alexander  I  Constantine,  (14)  Nicholas  I 

(1801-1825)  Governor  of  Poland  (18^5-1855) 

(15)  Alexander  II 
(1855-1881) 

(16)  Alexander  III 
(1881-1894) 

(17)  Nicholas  II 
(1894-       ) 


ADDITIONAL  READING 

The  Rise  of  Russia.  Elementary  sketches :  J.  H.  Robmson  and  C.  A. 
Beard,  The  Development  of  Modern  Europe,  Vol.  I  (1907),  ch.  iv ;  H.  O. 
Wakeman,  The  Ascendaney  of  France,  isgS-iyiS  (1894),  ch.  viii,  xii,  xiii ; 
.\rthur  Hassall,  The  Balance  of  Power,  I'/is-ijSg  (1896),  ch.  v,  xi ;  A.  H. 
Johnson,  The  Age  of  the  Enlightened  Despot,  i66o-ij8g  (1910),  ch.  iv,  v; 
H.  T.  Dyer,  A  History  of  Modern  Europe  from  the  Fall  of  Constantinople, 
3d  ed.  rev.  by  Arthur  Hassall,  6  vols.  (1901),  ch.  xxxvi,  xxxviii,  xli,  xlix,  1. 
More  detailed  histories:  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  V  (1908),  ch. 
xvi-xix,  and  Vol.  VI  (1909),  ch.  x,  xix;  Histoire  generate.  Vol.  V,  ch.  xvi- 
xviii,  XX,  Vol.  VI,  ch.  xvii-xix,  xxi,  xxii,  Vol.  VII,  ch.  viii,  ix,  excellent 
chapters  in  French  by  such  eminent  scholars  as  Louis  Leger  and  Alfred 
Rambaud ;  V.  O.  Kliuchevsky,  A  History  of  Russia,  Eng.  trans,  by  C.  J. 
Hogarth,  3  vols.  (1911-1913),  authoritative. on  the  early  history  of  Russia, 
but  comes  down  only  to  1610;  Alfred  Rambaud,  Histoire  de  la  Russie 
depuis  les  origines  jusqu'd  nos  jours,  6th'  ed.  (1914),  ch.  xiv-xxxii,  —  an 
earlier  edition  of  this  standard  work  was  translated  into  English  by  Leonora 
B.  Lang  and  published  in  two  volumes,  of  which  the  larger  part  treats  of 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  ;  James  IMavor,  Economic  History 
of  Russia,  Vol.  I  (1914),  Book  I,  ch.  iv-vii,  especially  useful  for  the  economic 
and  social  reforms  of  Peter  the  Great.  On  the  Russian  sovereigns:  R.  N. 
Bain,  The  First  Romanovs,  i6ij~iy25  (1905),  and,  by  the  same  author. 
Pupils  of  Peter  the  Great :  a  History  of  the  Russian  Court  and  Empire  from 
i6qj  to  1740  (1897) ;    Eugene  Schuyler,  Peter  the  Great,  2  vols.  (1884),  a 


390  HISTORY   OF   MODERN  EUROPE 

scholarly  work  ;  Kazimierz  Waliszewski,  Peter  the  Great,  an  admirable  study 
trans,  from  the  French  by  Lady  Mary  Loyd  (1900),  and,  by  the  same  author, 
though  not  as  yet  translated,  U heritage  de  Pierre  le  Grand :  regiie  dcsjcmmes, 
goHvernement  des  favoris,  1725-1741  (igoo)  and  La  derniere  dcs  Romanov, 
Elisabeth  F^  (1902) ;  Alexander  Bruckner,  Peter  der  Grosse  (1879),  and, 
by  the  same  author,  Katharina  die  Zweite  (1883),  important  German  works, 
in  the  Oncken  Series;  E.  A.  B.  Hodgetts,  The  Life  of  Catherine  the  Great 
of  Rtissia  (1914),  a  recent  fair-minded  treatment  in  English.  On  the  ex- 
pansion of  the  Russian  people  :  Alfred  Rambaud,  The  Expansion  of  Russia, 
2d  ed.  (1904) ;  F.  A.  Colder,  Russian  Expansion  on  the  Pacific,  1641-1850; 
Hans  Ubersberger,  Riisslands  Orientpolitik  in  den  letzten  zwei  Jahrhunderten, 
Vol.  I,  down  to  1792  (1913). 

The  Decline  of  Sweden,  Turkey,  and  Poland.  On  Sweden :  R.  N. 
Bain,  Scandinavia,  a  Political  History  of  Denmark,  Noi-way,  and  Sweden, 
1513-IQ00  (1905),  and,  by  the  same  author,  Charles  XII  (1899)  in  the 
"  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series.  On  Turkey:  Stanley  Lane-Poole,  Turkey 
(1889),  in  the  "  Story  of  the  Nations  "  Series,  and  E.  A.  Freeman,  The 
Ottoman  Power  in  Europe,  its  Nature,  its  Groivth,  and  its  Decline  (1877), 
suggestive  outlines  by  eminent  English  historians;  Nicolae  Jorga,  Ge- 
schichte  des  osmaniscJien  Reiches,  5  vols.  (1908-1913),  particularly  Vols. 
in,  IV,  the  best  and  most  up-to-date  history  of  the  Ottoman  Empire ; 
Joseph  von  Hammer,  Geschichte  des  osmauischen  Reiches,  10  vols.  (1827- 
1835),  an  old  work,  very  detailed  and  still  famous,  of  which  Vols.  VI- VIII 
treat  of  the  eighteenth  century  prior  to  1774.  On  Poland:  W.  A.  Phillips, 
Poland  (191 5),  ch.  i-vi,  a  convenient  volume  in  the  "  Home  University 
Library";  R.  N.  Bain,  Slavonic  Europe:  a  Political  History  of  Poland 
and  Russia  from  1447  to  i7g6  (1908),  ch.  v-xix;  Cambridge  Modern  History, 
Vol.  VIII  (1904),  ch.  xvii;  W.  R.  A.  Morfill,  Poland  (1893),  in  the  "  Story 
of  the  Nations"  Series;  R.  H.  Lord,  The  Second  Partition  of  Poland:  a 
Study  in  Diplomatic  History  (191 5),  scholarly  and  well-written;  R.  N. 
Bain,  Tlie  Last  King  of  Poland  and  his  Contemporaries  (1909) ;  U.  L. 
Lehtonen,  Die  polnischcn  Provinzen  Russlands  tinier  Katharina  II  in  den 
Jahren  1772-1782  (1907),  a  German  translation  of  an  important  Finnish 
work.  An  excellent  French  account  of  international  relations  in  the 
seventeenth  and^  eighteenth  centuries,  affecting  Russia,  Sweden,  Poland, 
and  Turkey,  is  Emile  Bourgeois,  Manuel  historique  de  politique  etrangcre, 
4th  ed.,  Vol.  I  (1906),  ch.  viii,  x,  xiii. 


PART   III 
"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY" 


PART   III 
"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY" 

Our  narrative  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries 
thus  far  has  been  full  of  intrigue,  dynastic  rivalry,  and  colonial 
competition.  We  have  sat  with  red-robed  cardinals  in  council 
to  exalt  the  monarch  of  France ;  we  have  witnessed  the  world- 
wide wars  by  which  Great  Britain  won  and  lost  vast  imperial 
domains  ;  we  have  followed  the  thundering  march  of  Frederick's 
armies  through  the  Germanics,  wasted  with  war ;  but  we  have 
been  blind  indeed  if  the  glare  of  bright  helmets  and  the  glamour 
of  courtly  diplomacy  have  hidden  from  our  eyes  a  phenomenon 
more  momentous  than  even  the  growth  of  Russia  or  the  conquest 
of  New  France.     It  is  the  rise  of  the  bourgeoisie. 

Driven  on  by  insatiable  ambition,  not  content  to  be  lords  of 
the  world  of  business,  with  ships  and  warehouses  for  castles  and 
with  clerks  for  retainers,  the  bourgeoisie  have  placed  their  law- 
yers in  the  royal  service,  their  learned  men  in  the  academies, 
their  economists  at  the  king's  elbow,  and  with  restless  energy 
they  push  on  to  shape  state  and  society  to  their  own  ends.  In 
England  they  have  already  helped  to  dethrone  kings  and  have 
secured  some  hold  on  Parliament,  but  on  the  Continent  their 
power  and  place  is  less  advanced. 

For  the  eighteenth  century  is  still  the  grand  age  of  monarchs, 
who  take  Louis  XIV  as  the  pattern  of  princely  power  and  pomp. 
"Benevolent  despots"  they  are,  these  monarchs  meaning  well 
to  govern  their  people  with  fatherly  kindness.  But  their  plans 
go  wrong  and  their  reforms  fall  fiat,  while  the  bourgeoisie  be- 
come self-conscious  and  self-reliant,  and  rise  up  against  the 
throne  of  the  sixteenth  Louis  in  France.  It  is  the  bourgeoisie 
that  start  the  revolutionary  cry  of  "Liberty,  Equality,  Frater- 
nity," and  it  is  this  cry  in  the  throats  of  the  masses  which  sends 

393 


394  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

terror  to  the  hearts  of  nobles  and  kings.     Desperately  the  old 
order  —  the  old  regime  —  defends  itself.     First  France,  then  all 

I  Europe,  is  affected.  Revolutionary  wars  convulse  the  Conti- 
nent. Never  had  the  world  witnessed  wars  so  disastrous,  so 
bloody. 

Yet  the  triumph  of  the  bourgeoisie  is  not  assured.  The  Revo- 
lution has  been  but  one  battle  in  the  long  war  between  the  rival 
aristocracies  of  birth  and  of  business  —  a  war  in  which  peasants 
and  artisans  now  give  their  lives  for  illusory  dreams  of  "Liberty, 
Equality,  Fraternity,"  now  fight  their  feudal  lords,  and  now  turn 
on  their  pretended  liberators,  the  bourgeoisie.     For  already  it 

1  begins  to  dawn  on  the  dull  masses  that  "Liberty,  Equality,  Fra- 
ternity" are  chiefly  for  their  masters. 

The  old  regime,  its  decay,  the  rise  of  the  bourgeoisie,  the  dis- 
appointment of  the  common  people,  —  these  are  the  bold  land- 
marks on  which  the  student  must  fix  his  attention,  while  in  the 
following  chapters  we  sketch  the  condition  of  Europe  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  trace  the  course  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion, the  career  of  Napoleon,  and  the  restoration  of  "law  and 
order"  under  Metternich. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

EUROPEAN    SOCIETY   IN   THE   EIGHTEENTH   CENTURY 

AGRICULTURE   IN  THE   EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

If  some  ''Rip  Van  Winkle"  of  the  sixteenth  century  could 
have  slept  for  two  centuries  to  awake  in  1750,  he  would  have 
found  far  less  to  marvel  at  in  the  common  life  of  the  General 
people  than  would  one  of  us.     Much  of  the  farming,  Backward- 
and  even  of  the  weaving,  buying,  and  selling,  was  done  °^^^ 
just  as  it  had  been  done  centuries  before ;  and  the  great  changes 
that  were  to  revolutionize  the  life  and  work  of  the  people  were 
as  yet  hardly  dreamed  of.     In  fact,  there  was  so  much  in  com- 
mon between  the  sixteenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  that  the 
reader  who  has  already  made  himself  familiar  with  the  manor 
and  the  gild,  as  described  in  Chapter  II,  will  find  himself  quite 
at  home  in  the  "old  regime,"  as  the  order  of  things  in  the  eight- 
eenth century  is  now  termed. 

One  might  still  see  the  countless  little  agricultural  villages 
and  manor  houses  nestling  among  the  hills  or  dotting  the  plains, 
surrounded  by  green  fields  and  fringed  with  forest  or  wasteland. 
The  simple  villagers  still  cultivated  their  strips  in  the  common 
fields  in  the  time-honored  way,  working  hard  for  meager  returns. 
A  third  of  the  land  stood  idle  every  year ;  it  often  took  a  whole 
day  merely  to  scratch  the  surface  of  a  single  acre  with  the  rude 
wooden  plow  then  in  use ;  cattle  were  killed  oft'  in  the  autumn 
for  want  of  good  hay ;  fertihzers  were  only  crudely  applied,  if 
at  all ;  many  a  humble  peasant  was  content  if  his  bushel  of 
seed  brought  him  three  bushels  of  grain,  and  was  proud  if 
his  fatted  ox  weighed  over  four  hundred  pounds,  though  a 
modern  farmer  would  grumble  at  results  three  or  four  times 
as  good. 

395 


396  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

There  were  some  enterprising  and  prosperous  landowners  who 
used  newer  and  better  methods,  and  even  wrote  books  about 

"husbandry,"  as  agriculture  was  called.  The  Dutch, 
m^n°*^^  especially,  learned  to  cultivate  their  narrow  territory 
Farmers  "  carefully,  and  from  them  Enghsh  farmers  learned  many 
bandry^"^     sccrets  of  tillage.     They  grew  clover  and  "artificial 

grasses"  — such  as  rye  —  for  their  cattle,  cultivated 
turnips  for  winter  fodder,  tilled  the  soil  more  thoroughly,  used 
fertihzers  more  diligently,  and  even  learned  how  to  shift  their 

crops  from  field  to  field  according  to  a  regular  plan, 
of^^rops""      ^°  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  would  not  lose  its  fertihty  and  would 

not  have  to  be  left  idle  or  "fallow"  every  third  year. 
These  new  methods  were  all  very  fine  for  "gentlemen  farmers," 
but  for  the  average  peasant  the  old  "open-field"  system  was  an 
Survival  of  effective  barrier  to  progress.  He  could  not  plant  new 
Primitive  crops  on  his  strips  in  the  grain  fields,  for  custom  for- 
Methods  bade  it;  he  could  not  breed  his  cows  scientifically, 
while  they  ran  in  with  the  rest  of  the  village  cattle.  At  best  he 
could  only  work  hard  and  pray  that  his  cows  would  not  catch 
contagion  from  the  rest,  and  that  the  weeds  from  his  neighbor's 
wheat-patch  might  not  spread  into  his  own,  for  between  such 
patches  there  was  neither  wall  nor  fence. 

Primitive  methods  were  not  the  only  survivals  of  manorial 
Kfe.     Actual  serfdom  still  prevailed  in  most  of  the  countries  of 

Europe  except  France^  and  England,  and  even  in  these 
o"serrdom    coun tries  nominal  freedom  lifted  the  peasantry  but  little 

above  the  common  lot.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  count- 
less differences  in  the  degree  and  conditions  of  servitude  ex- 
isted between  Russians  and  Frenchmen,  and  even  between 
peasants  in  the  same  country  or  village.  The  English  or 
French   plowman,    perhaps,   might   not    be    sold    to    fight  for 

other  countries  like  the  Hessians,  nor  could  he  be 
Condition  commanded  to  marry  an  undesired  bride,  as  were 
°!  *^®  the    tenants    of    a    Russian    nobleman.      But    in    a 

P  6  3.  S  3.11 1  IT  V 

general  way  we  may  say  that  all  the  peasants  of 
Europe  suffered  from  much  the  same  causes.  With  no  voice 
in  making  the  laws,  they  were  liable  to  heavy  fmes  or  capital 

^  Even  in  France,  some  serfdom  still  survived. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  397 

pimishmciU  t'oi'  hreakinu;  ihc  laws.  'Hicir  acK'ice  was  not  asked 
when  taxes  were  levied  or  ajiportioned,  but  upon  them  fell  the 
heaviest  burdens  of  the  state. 

It  was  vexatious  to  pay  outrageous  fees  for  the  use  of  a  lord's 
mill,  bridge,  oven,  or  wine-press,  to  be  haled  to  court  for  an 
imaginary  offense,  or  to  be  called  from  one's  fields  to  war,  or 
to  w^ork  on  the  roads  without  pay.  It  was  hard  for  the  hungry 
serf  to  see  the  fat  deer  \'enturing  into  his  very  dooryard,  and  to 
remember  that  the  master  of  the  mansion  house  was  so  fond  of 
the  chase  that  he  would  not  allow  his  game  to  be  killed  for  food 
for  \'ulgar  plowmen. 

But  these  and  similar  vexations  sank  into  insignificance  in 
comparison  with  the  burdens  of  the  taxes  paid  to  lord,  to  church, 
and  to  king.  In  every  country  of  Europe  the  peasants  were 
taxed,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  support  of  the  three  pillars  of 
the  "old  regime."  The  form  of  such  taxation  in  England 
differed  widely  from  that  in  Hungary ;  in  Sweden,  from  that 
in  Spain.  But  beneath  discrepancies  of  form,  the  system  was 
essentially  the  same.  Some  idea  of  the  triple  taxation  that 
everywhere  bore  so  heavily  upon  the  peasantry  may  be  obtained 
from  a  brief  resume  of  the  financial  obHgations  of  an  ordinary 
French  peasant  to  his  king,  his  Church,  and  his  lord. 

To  the  lord  the  serf  owed  often  three  days'  labor  a  week,  in 
addition  to  stated  portions  of  grain  and  poultry.     In  place  of 
servile  work  the  freeman  paid  a  "quit-rent,"  that  is,  a  peasant 
sum  of  money  instead  of  the  services  which  were  con-  Obligations 
sidered  to  accompany  the  occupation  of  land.     Double 
rent  was  paid  on  the  death  of  the  peasant,  and,  if  the  farm  was 
sold,  one-fifth  of  the  price  went  to  the  lord.     Sometimes,  how- 
ever, a  freeman  held  his  land  without  quit-rent,  but  still  had 
numerous  obHgations  which  had  survived  from  medieval  times, 
such  as  the  annual  sum  paid  for  a  "miUtary  protection"  which 
he  neither  demanded  nor  received. 

The  second  obligation  was  to  the  church  — •  the  tithe  or  tenth, 
which  usually  amounted  every  year  to  a  twelfth  or  peasant 
a   fifteenth   of   the   gross  produce  of    the    peasant's   Obligation 

,        ,  &  I  ^  to  Church 

land. 

Hea\dest  of  all  w^re  the  taxes  levied  by  the  king.  The 
taille,  or  land  tax,  was  the  most  important.     The  amount  was 


398  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

not  fixed,  but  was  supposed  to  be  proportional  to  the  value  of 

the  peasant's  land  and  dwelling.     In  practice  the  tax-collectors 

often  took  as  much  as  they  could  get,  and  a  shrewd 
JPeassint 

Obligations    peasant  would  let  his  house  go  to  pieces  and  pretend 
to  King         j-Q  ]3g  utterly  destitute  in  order   that  the   assessors 

and  State  .     ■'  . 

might  not  mcrease  the  valuation  of  his  property. 

The  other  direct  taxes  were  the  poll  tax,  i.e.,  a  trifling  sum 
which  everybody  alike  must  pay,  and  the  income  tax,  usually 
a  twentieth  part  of  the  income.  Finally,  there  were  indirect 
taxes,  such  as  the  salt  gabelle.  Thus,  in  certain  provinces  every 
person  had  to  buy  seven  pounds  of  salt  a  year  from  the  govern- 
ment salt-works  at  a  price  ten  times  its  real  value.  Road- 
making,  too,  was  the  duty  of  the  peasant,  and  the  corvee,  or 
labor  on  roads,  often  took  several  weeks  in  a  year. 

All  these  burdens  —  dues  to  the  lord,  tithes  to  the  church, 
taxes  to  the  king  —  left  the  peasant  but  little  for  himself.  It  is 
Burden  of  ^°  difficult  to  get  exact  figures  that  we  can  put  no  trust 
Taxation  on  in  the  estimate  of  a  famous  writer  that  dues,  tithes, 
and  taxes  absorbed  over  four-fifths  of  the  French 
peasant's  produce  :  nevertheless,  we  may  be  sure  that  the  burden 
was  very  great.  In  a  few  favored  districts  of  France  and  Eng- 
land farmers  were  able  to  pay  their  taxes  and  still  live  comfort- 
ably. But  elsewhere  the  misery  of  the  people  was  such  as  can 
hardly  be  imagined.  With  the  best  of  harvests  they  could 
barely  provide  for  their  families,  and  a  dry  summer  or  long  winter 
would  bring  them  to  want.  There  was  only  the  coarsest  of 
bread  —  and  little  of  that ;  meat  was  a  luxury ;  and  delicacies 
were  for  the  rich.  We  read  how  starving  peasants  in  France 
tried  to  appease  their  hunger  with  roots  and  herbs,  and  in  hard 
times  succumbed  by  thousands  to  famine.  One-roomed  mud 
huts  with  leaky  thatched  roofs,  bare  and  windowless,  were  good 
enough  dwellings  for  these  tillers  of  the  soil.  In  the  dark  corners 
of  the  dirt-floors  lurked  germs  of  pestilence  and  death.  Fuel 
was  expensive,  and  the  bitter  winter  nights  must  have  found 
many  a  peasant  shivering  supperless  on  his  bed  of  straw. 

True,  the  gloom  of  such  conditions  was  relieved  here  and 
there  by  a  prosperous  village  or  a  well-to-do  peasant.  But, 
speaking  in  a  general  way,  the  sufferings  of  the  poorer  European 
peasants  and  serfs  can  hardly  be  exaggerated.     It  was  they  who 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  399 

in  large  part  had  paid  for  the  wars,  theaters,  palaces,  and  pleas- 
ures of  the  courts  of  Europe. 

COMMERCE   AND    INDUSTRY   IN   THE   EIGHTEENTH 
CENTURY 

Let  us  now  turn  our  eyes  from  the  country  to  the  city,  for  in 
the  towns  are  to  be  found  the  bourgeoisie,  the  class  in  which  we 
are  most  interested.  The  steady  expansion  of  com-  Growth  of 
merce  and  industry  during  the  sixteenth  and  seven-  Towns 
teenth  centuries  had  been  attended  by  a  remarkable  develop- 
ment of  town  life.  Little  villages  had  gro^vn,  until  in  1787  there 
were  78  towns  of  over  10,000  inhabitants  each.  London,  the 
greatest  city  in  Europe,  had  increased  in  population  from  about 
half  a  million  in  1685  to  over  a  million  in  1800.  Paris  was  at 
least  half  as  large ;  Amsterdam  was  a  great  city ;  and  several 
German  towns  Hke  Hamburg,  Bremen,  and  Frankfort  were  im- 
portant trading  centers. 

The  towns  had  begun  to  lose  some  of  their  medieval  charac- 
teristics. They  had  spread  out  beyond  their  cramping  walls; 
roomy  streets  and  pleasant  squares  made  the  newer  sections  more 
attractive.  The  old  fortifications,  no  longer  needed  for  protec- 
tion, served  now  as  promenades.  City  thoroughfares  were  kept 
cleaner,  sometimes  well  paved  with  cobbles ;  and  at  night  the 
feeble  but  cheerful  glow  of  oil  street-lamps  lessened  the  terrors 
of  the  belated  burgher  who  had  been  at  the  theater  or  Ustened  to 
protracted  debates  at  the  great  town  hall. 

The  hfe  of  the  town  was  nourished  by  industry  and  commerce. 
Industry  in  the  eighteenth  century  meant  far  more  than  baking 
bread,  making  clothes,  cobbhng  shoes,  and  fashioning 
furniture  for  use  in  the  town ;   it  meant  the  produc- 
tion on  a  large  scale  of  goods  to  sell  in  distant  places,  —  cloth, 
clocks,  shoes,  beads,  dishes,  hats,  buttons,  and  what  not.     Many 
of  these  articles  were  still  manufactured  under  the  regulations 
of  the  old  craft  gilds.     For  although  the  gild  system  oud 
was  pretty  well  broken  up  in  England,  it  still  main-  Regulation 
tained  its  hold  on  the  Continent.     In  France  the  division  of 
crafts  had  become  so  comphcated  that  innumerable  bickerings 
arose  between  cobblers'   gilds  and  shoemakers'  gilds,  between 


400  HISTOR^'   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

watch-makers  and  clock-makers.  In  Germany  conditions  were 
worse.  The  gilds,  now  aristocratic  and  practically  hereditary 
corporations,  used  their  power  to  prevent  all  competition,  to 
keep  their  apprentices  and  journeymen  working  for  Httle  or 
nothing,  to  insure  high  profits,  and  to  prevent  any  technical 
improvements  which  might  conceivably  injure  them.  *'A 
hatter  who  improved  his  wares  by  mixing  silk  with  the  wool 
was  attacked  by  all  the  other  hatters ;  the  inventor  of  sheet 
lead  was  opposed  by  the  plumbers ;  a  man  who  had  made  a 
success  in  print-cloths  was  forced  to  return  to  antiquated  methods 
by  the  dyers." 

To  gild  regulation  was  added  government  regulation.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  many  seventeenth-century  statesmen  had 
urged  their  kings  to  make  laws  for  the  greater  pros- 
ReguM^rT  perity  of  industry,  and  that  Colbert  had  given  the 
of  Industry:  classic  expression  in  France  to  the  mercantilist  idea 
tuism^'^  that  wealth  could  be  cultivated  by  regulating  and 
encouraging  manufactures.  In  order  that  French 
dyers  might  acquire  a  reputation  for  thorough  work,  he  issued 
over  three  hundred  articles  of  instruction  for  the  better  conduct 
of  the  dyeing  business.  In  an  age  when  unscrupulous  English 
merchants  were  hurting  the  market  with  poorly  woven  fabrics, 
French  weavers  were  given  careful  orders  about  the  quaUty  of 
the  thread,  the  breadth  of  the  cloth,  and  the  fineness  of  the 
weave.  It  is  said  that  in  1787  the  regulations  for  French  manu- 
factures filled  eight  volumes  in  quarto ;  and  other  governments, 
while  less  thorough,  were  equally  convinced  of  the  wisdom  of 
such  a  poHcy. 

The  mercantihst  was  not  content  with  making  rules  for  estab- 
lished industries.  In  justice  to  him  it  should  be  explained  that 
he  was  anxious  to  plant  new  trades.  Privileges,  titles  of  no- 
bihty,  exemption  from  taxation,  generous  grants  of  money,  and 
other  favors  were  accorded  to  enterprising  business  men  who 
undertook  to  introduce  new  branches  of  manufacture. 

In  general,  however,  the  efforts  of  such  mercantilists  as  Col- 
bert have  been  adversely  criticized  by  economists.  The  regu- 
lations caused  much  inconvenience  and  loss  to  many  manu- 
facturers, and  the  privileges  granted  to  new  enterprises  often 
favored  unstable  and   unsuitable   industries  at  the  expense  of 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  401 

more  natural  and  valuable  trades.  It  is  impossible  to  estimate 
the  value  to  France  of  Colbert's  pet  industries,  and  equally 
impossible  to  see  what  would  have  happened  had  industry  been 
allowed  free  rein.  But  we  must  not  entirely  condemn  the  sys- 
tem simply  because  its  faults  are  so  obvious  and  its  benefits  so 
hard  to  ascertain. 

Commerce,  hke  industry,  was  subject  to  restrictions  and 
impeded  by  antiquated  customs.  Merchants  traversing  the 
country  were  hindered  by  poor  roads ;  at  frequent  intervals 
they  must  pay  toll  before  passing  a  knight's  castle,  a  Restrictions 
bridge,  or  a  town  gate.  Customs  duties  were  levied  on  on  Com- 
commerce  between  the  provinces  of  a  single  kingdom. 
And  the  cost  of  transportation  was  thus  made  so  high  that  the 
price  of  a  cask  of  wine  passing  from  the  Orleanais  to  Normandy 
—  two  provinces  in  northwestern  France  —  increased  twenty-fold. 

From  our  past  study  of  the  commercial  and  colonial  wars  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  especially  those  between  France  and 
Great  Britain,  we  have  already  learned  that  mercantilist  ideas 
were  still  dominant  in  foreign  commerce.  We  have  noted  the 
heavy  protective  tariffs  which  were  designed  to  shut  out  foreign 
competition.  We  have  discussed  the  Navigation  Acts,  by  means 
of -which  England  encouraged  her  ship-owners.  We  have  also 
mentioned  the  absorption,  by  specially  chartered  companies, 
of  the  profits  of  the  lucrative  European  trade  with  the  Indies. 
The  East  India  Company,  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  the 
Dutch  East  India  Company,  and  the  French  Compagnie  des 
Indes  were  but  a  few  famous  examples  of  the  chartered  com- 
panies w^hich  still  practically  monopoUzed  the  trade  of  most  non- 
European  countries. 

Customs  and  companies  may  have  been  injurious  in  many 
respects,  but  commerce  grew  out  of  all  bounds.     The  New  World 
gave  furs,  timber,  tobacco,  cotton,  rice,  sugar,  rum,   q^^^^ 
molasses,  coffee,  dyes,  gold,  and  silver,  in  return  for  Growth  of 
negro  slaves,  manufactures,  and  Oriental  wares ;   and 
the  broad  Atlantic  highways  were  traversed  by  many  hundreds 
of  hea\dly  laden  ships.     The  spices,  jewels,  tea,  and  textiles  of 
the  Far  East  made  rich  cargoes  for  well-built  East  Indiamen. 
Important,  too,  was  the  traffic  which  occupied  English  and  Dutch 
merchant  fleets  in  the  Baltic;    and  the  flags  of  many  nations 


402  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

were  carried  by  traders  coastwise  along  all  the  shores  of  Europe. 
Great  Britain  at  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century  possessed 
a  foreign  commerce  estimated  at  $60,000,000,  and  that  of  France 
was  at  least  two-thirds  as  great.  During  the  century  the  volume 
of  commerce  was  probably  more  than  quadrupled. 

It  is  difficult  to  reahze  the  tremendous  importance  of  this 
expansion  of  commerce  and  industry.  It  had  erected  colonial 
empires,  caused  wars,  lured  milKons  of  peasants  from  their  farms, 
and  built  populous  cities.  But  most  important  of  all  —  it  had 
given  strength  to  the  bourgeoisie. 
«  Merchants,  bankers,  wholesalers,  rich  gild-masters,  and  even 
I  less  opulent  shopkeepers,  formed  a  distinct  "middle  class,"  be- 
Rise  of  the  tween  the  privileged  clergy  and  nobility  on  the  one 
Bourgeoisie  hand,  and  the  oppressed  peasant  and  artisan,  or 
manual  laborer,  on  the  other.  The  middle  class,  often  called 
by  the  French  word  bourgeoisie  because  it  dwelt  in  towns  or 
bourgs,  was  strongest  in  England,  the  foremost  commercial 
nation  of  Europe,  was  somewhat  weaker  in  France,  and  very 
much  weaker  in  less  commercial  countries,  such  as  Germany, 
Austria,  and  Russia. 

If  the  bourgeoisie  was  all-powerful  in  the  world  of  business,  it 
was  influential  in  other  spheres.  Lawyers  came  almost  exclu- 
sively from  commercial  families.  Judges,  local  magistrates, 
keepers  of  prisons,  government  secretaries,  intendants,  all  the 
world  of  officialdom  was  thronged  with  scions  of  bourgeois 
families.  The  better  and  older  middle-class  families  prided 
I  themselves  on  their  wealth,  influence,  and  culture.  They  read 
the  latest  books  on  science  and  philosophy ;  they  sometimes 
criticized  the  religious  ideas  of  the  past ;  and  they  eagerly  dis- 
cussed questions  of  constitutional  law  and  political  economy. 

Ambition  came  quite  naturally  with  wealth  and  learning. 
The  bourgeoisie  wanted  power  and  privilege  commensurate 
Ambition  y^'ith  their  place  in  business  and  administration.  It 
of  the  seemed  unbearable  that  a  foppish  noble  whose  only 

ourgeoisie  ^^jg^jj^g  ^q  respect  were  a  moldy  castle  and  a  worm- 
eaten  patent  of  nobility  should  everywhere  take  precedence  over 
men  of  means  and  brains.  Why  should  the  highest  social  dis- 
tinctions, the  richest  sinecures,  and  the  posts  of  greatest  honor 
in  the  army  and  at  court  be  closed  to  men  of  ignoble  birth,  as 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  403 

if  a  man  were  any  better  for  the  possession  of  a  high-sounding 
title  ? 

Moreover,  the  bourgeoisie  desired  a  more  direct  say  in  politics. 
Lq  England,  to  be  sure,  the  sons  of  rich  merchants  were  fre- 
quently admitted  to  the  nobility,  and  commercial  interests  were 
pretty  well  represented  in  Parliament.  In  France,  however, 
the  feudal  nobility  was  more  arrogant  and  exclusive,  and  the 
government  less  in  harmony  with  middle-class  notions.  The 
extravagant  and  wasteful  administration  of  royal  money  was 
censured  by  every  good  business  man.  It  was  argued  that  if 
France  might  only  have  bourgeois  representation  in  a  national 
parliament  to  regulate  finance  and  to  see  that  customs  duties, 
trade-laws,  and  foreign  relations  were  managed  in  accordance 
with  business  interests,  then  all  would  be  well. 

THE   PRIVILEGED    CLASSES 

Thus  far,  in  analyzing  social  and  economic  conditions  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  we  have  concerned  ourselves  with  the  lowest 
class,  the  peasants  and  day  laborers,  and  with  the  middle  class 
or  bourgeoisie  —  the  ''Third  Estate"  of  France  and  the  ''Com- 
mons" of  Great  Britain.  All  of  these  were  technically  unpriv- 
ileged or  ignoble  classes.  The  highest  place  in  society  was  re- 
served for  the  classes  of  the  pri\'ileged,  the  clergy  and  the  nobility, 
constituting  the  First  and  the  Second  Estates,  respectively. 
And  it  is  to  these  that  w^e  must  now  direct  our  attention. 

The  pri\dleged  classes  formed  a  very  small  minority  of  the  popu- 
lation.    Of  the  2 5, 000,000  inhabitants  of  France,  prob- 
ably less  than  150,000  were  nobles  and  130,000  clerics  ;  Number  of 
about  one  out  of  every  hundred  of  the  people  was  "  ^"^|; 
therefore  pri\dleged. 

This  small  upper  class  was  distinguished  from  the  common 
herd  by  rank,  possessions,  and  privileges.     The  person  of  noble 
birth,  i.e.,  the  son  of  a  noble,  was  esteemed  to  be  in- 
herently finer  and  better  than  other  men ;  so  much  so  Number 
that  he  would  disdain  to  marry  a  person  of  the  lower  f^ "  -P"^*" 
class.     He  was  addressed  In  terms  of  respect  —  "my 
lord,"  "your  Grace "  ;  common  men  saluted  him  as  their  superior. 
His  clothes  were  more  gorgeous  than  those  of  the  plain  people ; 


404  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

on  his  breast  glittered  the  badges  of  honorary  societies,  and 
his  coach  was  proudly  decorated  with  an  ancestral  coat 
of  arms.  His  "gentle"  birth  admitted  him  to  the  polite 
society  of  the  court  and  enabled  him  to  seek  preferment  in 
church  or  army. 

More  substantial  than  marks  of  honor  were  the  actual  pos- 
sessions of  nobles  and  clergy.  Each  noble  bequeathed  to  his 
eldest  son  a  castle  or  a  mansion  with  more  or  less  territory 
from  which  to  collect  rents  or  feudal  dues.  Bishops,  abbots, 
and  archbishops  received  their  office  by  election  or  appointment 
rather  than  by  inheritance,  and,  being  unmarried,  could  not 
transmit  their  stations  to  children.  But  in  countries  where  the 
wealth  of  the  Church  had  not  been  confiscated  by  Protestants, 
the  "prince  of  the  Church"  often  enjoyed  during  his  Hfetime 
magnificent  possessions.  The  bishop  of  Strassburg  had  an  an- 
nual income  approximating  500,000  francs.  Castles,  cathedrals, 
palaces,  rich  vestments,  invaluable  pictures,  golden  chalices, 
rentals  from  broad  lands,  tithes  from  the  people,  —  these  were 
the  property  of  the  clergy.  It  is  estimated  that  the  clergy  and 
nobihty  each  owned  one-fifth  of  France,  and  that  one-third  of 
all  the  land  of  Europe,  one-half  the  revenue,  and  two-thirds  the 
capital,  were  in  the  hands  of  Christian  churches. 

The  noble  famihes,  possessing  thousands  of  acres,  and  monopo- 
hzing  the  higher  offices  of  church  and  army,  were  further  en- 
riched, especially  in  France,  by  presents  of  money  from  the  king, 
by  pensions,  by  grants  of  monopolies,  and  by  high-salaried  posi- 
tions which  entailed  Httle  or  no  work.  "One  young  man  was 
given  a  salary  of  $3600  for  an  office  whose  sole  duty  consisted 
in  signing  his  name  twice  a  year." 

With  all  their  wealth  the  first  two  orders  contributed  almost 
nothing  to  lighten  the  financial  burdens  of  the  state. ^  The 
Exemption  Church  in  France  claimed  exemption  from  taxation, 
from  but  made  annual  gifts  to  the  king  of  several  hundred 

Taxation  thousand  dollars,  though  such  grants  represented  less 
than  one  per  cent  of  its  income.  The  nobles,  too,  considered  the 
payment  of  direct  taxes  a  disgrace  to  their  gentle  blood,  and  did 
not  hesitate  by  trickery  to  evade  indirect  taxation,  leaving  the 

^  Exemption  from  taxation  was  often  and  similarly  granted  to  bourgeois  incum- 
bents of  government  offices. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  405 

chief  burdens  to  fall  upon  the  lower  classes,  and  most  of  all  upon 
the  peasantry. 

All  these  advantages,   privileges,   and  immunities  might  be 
looked  upon  as  a  fitting  reward  which  medieval  Europe  had 
given  to  her  nobles  for  protecting  peaceable  plowmen  Failure 
from    the   marauding   bands   then   so   common,   and  of  the 
which  she  had  bestowed  upon  her  clergy  for  preserv-  to"perform 
ing  education,  for  encouraging  agriculture,  for  fostering  Real 
the  arts,   for   tending   the  poor,    the    sick,   and   the     ^^^^^^ 
traveler,  and  for  performing  the  offices  of  religion.     But  long 
before  the  eighteenth  century  the  protective  functions  of  feudal 
nobles  had  been  transferred  to  the  royal  government.     No  longer 
useful,    the   hereditary   nobifity   was   merely  burdensome,   and 
ornamental.     Such  as  could  aft'ord  it,  spent  their  lives  The  Higher 
in  the  cities  or  at  the  royal  court  where  they  rarely  NobiUty 
did  anytliing  worth  while,  unless  it  were  to  invent  an  unusually 
dehcate    compHment   or  to  fashion   a   flawless    sonnet.     Their 
morals  were  not  of  the  best,  —  it  was  almost  fashionable  to  be 
vicious,  —  but  their  manners  were  perfect. 

Meanwhile,  the  landed  estates  of  these  absentee  lords  were  in 
charge  of  flint-hearted  agents,  whose  sole  mission  was  to  squeeze 
money  from  the  peasants,  to  make  them  pay  well  for  mill,  bridge, 
and  oven,  to  press  to  the  uttermost  every  claim  which  might 
give  the  absent  master  a  larger  revenue. 

The  poorer  noble,  the  "country  gentleman,"  was  hardly 
able  to  live  so  extravagant  a  life,  and  accordingly  remained  at 
home,  sometimes  making  friends  of  the  villagers,  stand-  The  Coun- 
ing  god-father  to  peasant-children,  or  inviting  heavy-  ^^^  Gentry 
booted  but  fight-hearted  plowmen  to  dance  in  the  castle 
courtyard.  But  often  his  life  was  dull  enough,  with  rents  hard 
to  collect,  and  only  hunting,  drinking,  and  gossip  to  pass  the 
time  away. 

A  similar  and  sharper  contrast  was  observable  between  the 
higher  and  lower  clergy,  in  England  as  well  as  in  Roman  Catho- 
lic countries.     Very  frequently  dissipated  young  nobles 
were  nominated  bishops  or  abbots  :   they  looked  upon 
[  their  office  as  a  source  of  revenue,  but  never  dreamed  of  dis- 
1  charging  any  spiritual  duties.     While  a  Cardinal  de  Rohan  with 
'  2,500,000  livres  a  year  astonished  the  court  of  France  with  his 


4o6  HISTORY  OF   MODERN  EUROPE 

magnificence  and  luxury,  many  a  shabby  but  faithful  country 
curate,  with  an  uncertain  income  of  less  than  $150  a  year,  was 
doing  his  best  to  make  both  ends  meet,  with  a  httle  to  spare  for 
charity. 

RELIGIOUS   AND    ECCLESIASTICAL    CONDITIONS   IN   THE 
EIGHTEENTH   CENTURY 

The  great  ecclesiastical  organization  that  had  dominated  the 
middle  ages  was  no  longer  the  one  church  of  Europe,  but  was 
^j^g  still  the  most  impressive.     Although  the  Protestant 

Catholic  Revolt  of  the  sixteenth  century  had  established  inde- 
pendent denominations  in  the  countries  of  northern 
Europe,  as  we  have  seen  in  Chapter  IV,  Roman  Catholic  Chris- 
tianity remained  the  state  rehgion  of  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal, 
France,  Austria,  the  Austrian  Netherlands,  Bavaria,  Poland, 
and  several  of  the  Swiss  Cantons.  Moreover,  large  sections  of 
the  population  of  Ireland,  Bohemia,  Hungary,  Asia,  and  America 
professed  Catholic  Christianity. 

Orthodox  Roman  Catholics  held  fast  to  their  faith  in  dogmas 
and  sacraments  and  looked  for  spiritual  guidance,  correction, 
and  comfort  to  the  regular  and  secular  clergy  of  their  Church. 
The  "secular"  hierarchy  of  pope,  cardinals,  archbishops,  bishops, 
priests,  and  deacons,  did  not  cease  its  pious  labor  "in  the  world"  ; 
nor  was  there  lack  of  zealous  souls  willing  to  forego  the  pleasures 
of  this  world,  that  they  might  live  holier  lives  as  monks,  nuns, 
or  begging  friars,  —  the  "regular"  clergy. 

In  its  relations  with  lay  states,  the  Roman  Cathohc  Church 
had  changed  more  than  in  its  internal  organization.  Many 
Relations  Protestaiit  rulers  now  recognized  the  pope  merely  as  an 
of  the  Itahan  prince,^  and  head  of  an  undesirable  religious 

Church*^  sect.  Roman  Catholics  were  either  persecuted,  or,  as 
with  Lay  in  Great  Britain,  deprived  of  poHtical  and  civil  rights. 
The  pope,  on  the  other  hand,  could  hardly  regard  as 
friends  those  who  had  denied  the  spiritual  mission  and  con- 
fiscated the  temporal  possessions  of  the  Church. 

In  Roman  Catholic  countries,  too,  the  power  of  the  pope  had 

1  The  pope,  it  will  be  remembered,  ruled  the  central  part  of  Italy  as  a 
temporal  prince. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  407 

been  lessened.  The  old  dispute  whether  pope  or  king  should 
control  the  appointment  of  bishops,  abbots,  and  other  high 
church  officers  had  at  last  been  settled  in  favor  of  the  king. 
The  pope  consented  to  recognize  royal  appointees,  provided  they 
were  "godly  and  suitable"  men  ;  in  return  he  usually  received  a 
fee  ("annate")  from  the  newly  appointed  prelate.  Other 
taxes  the  pope  rarely  ventured  to  levy ;  but  good  Roman  Catho- 
Hcs  continued  to  pay  "Peter's  Pence"  as  a  free-will  offering,  and 
the  bishops  occasionally  taxed  themselves  for  his  benefit.  In 
other  ways,  also,  the  power  of  the  Church  was  curtailed.  Royal 
courts  now  took  cognizance  of  the  greater  part  of  those  cases 
which  had  once  been  within  the  jurisdiction  of  ecclesiastical 
courts ;  ^  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Roman  Curia  was  limited ; 
and  the  lower  clergy  might  be  tried  in  civil  courts.  Finally, 
papal  edicts  were  no  longer  published  in  a  country  without  the 
sanction  of  the  king.  These  curtailments  of  papal  privilege 
were  doubtless  important,  but  they  meant  little  or  nothing  to 
the  millions  of  peasants  and  humble  workmen  who  heard  Mass, 
were  confessed,  and  received  the  sacraments  as  their  fathers  had 
done  before  them. 

Besides  their  incalculable  influence  over  the  souls  of  men,  the 
clergy  were  an  important  factor  in  the  civil  hfe  of  Roman  Catho- 
lic   countries.     Education    was    mostly    under    their         .  . 
auspices ;    they  conducted  the  hospitals  and  relieved  privileges 
the  poor.     Marriages  were  void  unless  solemnized  in  ^J^^, 
the  orthodox  manner,  and,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  chil- 
dren born  outside  of  Christian  wedlock  might  not  inherit  property. 
Heretics  who  died  unshriven,  were  denied  the  privilege  of  burial 
in  Catholic  cemeteries. 

Of  the  exemption  of  the  clergy  from  taxation,  and  of  the 
wealth  of  the  Church,  we  have  already  spoken,  as  well  as  of  the 
high  social  rank  of  its  prelates  —  a  rank  more  in  keeping  with 
that  of  wealthy  worldly  noblemen  than  with  that  of  devout 
"servants  of  the  Lord."  But  we  have  yet  to  mention  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Church  in  suppressing  heresy. 

In  theory  the  Roman  CathoHc  religion  was  still  obligatory  in 
Catholic  states.     Uniformity  of  faith  was  still  considered  essen- 

^  Blasphemy,  contempt  of  religion,  and  heresy  were,  however,  still  matters  for 
church  courts. 


4o8  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

tial  to  political  unity.  Kings  still  promised  at  coronation  faith- 
fully to  extirpate  heretical  sects.  In  Spain,  during  the  first 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century  hundreds  of  heretics  were  con- 
demned by  the  Inquisition  and  burned  at  the  stake ;  only 
toward  the  close  of  the  century  was  there  an  abatement  of  re- 
ligious intolerance.  In  France,  King  Louis  XIV  had  revoked 
the  Edict  of  Nantes  in  1685,  and  in  the  eighteenth  century  one 
might  have  found  laws  on  the  French  statute-books  directing 
that  men  who  attended  Protestant  services  should  be  made 
galley-slaves,  that  medical  aid  should  be  withheld  from  im- 
penitent heretics,  and  that  writers  of  irreligious  books  should 
suffer  death.  Such  laws  were  very  poorly  enforced,  however, 
and  active  religious  persecution  was  dying  out  in  France  in  the 
second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  But  toleration  did  not 
mean  equahty ;  full  civil  and  pohtical  rights  were  still  denied 
the  several  hundred  thousand  Huguenots  in  France. 

The  strength  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  eight- 
eenth century  was  impaired  by  four  circumstances :  (i)  the 
existence  of  bitterly  antagonistic  Protestant  sects ; 
of"^ak^  (2)  the  growth  of  royal  power  and  of  the  sentiment 
nesses  in  of  nationalism,  at  the  expense  of  papal  power  and  of 
Chur^h^°^^*^  internationalism ;  (3)  the  indolence  and  worldliness  of 
some  of  the  prelates ;  and  (4)  the  presence  of  internal 
dissensions.  The  first  three  circumstances  should  be  clear  from 
what  has  already  been  said,  but  a  word  of  explanation  is  neces- 
sary about  the  fourth. 

The  first  of  these  dissensions  arose  concerning  the  teachings 
of  a  certain  Flemish  bishop  by  the  name  of  Cornelius  Janssen 
(1585-1638),^  whose  followers,  known  as  Jansenists, 
anseiu  ^^^  possessed  thcmsclves  of  a  sort  of  hermitage  and 
nunnery  at  Port-Royal  in  the  vicinity  of  Paris.  Jansenism 
found  a  number  of  earnest  disciples  and  able  exponents,  whose 
educational  work  and  reforming  zeal  brought  them  into  conflict 
with  the  Jesuits.  The  Jesuits  accused  the  Jansenists  of  heresy, 
affirming  that  Janssen's  doctrine  of  conversion-by-the-will-of- 
God  was  in  last  analysis  practically  Calvin's  predestination. 
For  some  years  the  controversy  raged.  Blaise  Pascal  (1623- 
1662),  a  famous  mathematician  and  experimenter  in   physics, 

^  Janssen  is  commonly  cited  by  the  Latin  version  of  his  name  —  Jans«nius. 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  409 

defended  the  Jansenists  eloquently  and  learnedly,  but  Jesuits 
had  the  ear  of  Louis  XIV  and  broke  up  the  little  colony  at  Port- 
Royal.  Four  years  later  the  pope  issued  a  famous  bull,  called 
"Unigenitus"  (17 13),  definitively  condemning  Jansenist  doctrines 
as  heretical ;  but  the  sect  still  Hved  on,  especially  in  Holland,  and 
"Unigenitus"  was  disliked  by  many  orthodox  Roman  CathoHcs, 
who  thought  its  condemnations  too  sweeping  and  too  severe. 

A  second  dispute,  questioning  the  authority  of  tlie  papacy, 
centered  in  a  German  theologian  ^  who  wrote  under  the  Latin 
name  of  Febronius.  Febronianism  was  an  attempted  Febronian- 
revival  of  the  conciliar  movement  of  the  fifteenth  cen-  '^™ 
tury  and  closely  resembled  "GalHcanism,"  as  the  movement  in 
favor  of  the  "Liberties  of  the  GalHcan  Church"  was  called. 
These  "Liberties"  had  been  formulated  in  a  French  declaration 
of  1682  and  involved  two  major  claims :  (i)  that  the  pope  had 
no  right  to  depose  or  otherwise  to  interfere  with  temporal  mon- 
archs,  and  (2)  that  in  spiritual  affairs  the  general  council  of 
bishops  (oecumenical  council)  was  superior  to  the  sovereign 
pontiff.  This  twofold  movement  towards  nationahsm  and  rep- 
resentative church  government  was  most  strongly  controverted 
by  the  Jesuits,  who  took  their  stand  on  the  assertion  that  the 
pope  was  supreme  in  all  things.  By  the  opponents  of  the  Jesuits, 
this  looking  "beyond  the  mountains"  to  the  Roman  Curia  for 
ultimate  authority  was  called  Ultramontanism  (beyond-the- 
mountain-ism).  In  almost  every  CathoHc  country  of  Europe  the 
struggle  between  Ultramontanism  and  Febronianism  aroused 
controversy,  and  the  nature  of  papal  supremacy  remained  a 
mooted  point  well  into  the  nineteenth  century. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  Ultramontanism 
received  a  serious  though  temporary  setback  by  the  suppression 
of  the  Jesuits  (1773).     For  over  two  centuries  mem-  ^^ 
bers  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  had  been  famed  as  school-  sion  of 
masters,    preachers,    controversiaHsts,    and    mission-  q^^^^^^"^* 
aries  ;  but  in  the  eighteenth  century  the  order  became 
increasingly  involved  in  temporal  business  ;  its  power  and  wealth 
were  abused ;  its  poHtical  entanglements  incurred  the  resentment 
of  reforming  royal  ministers  ;  and  some  of  its  missionaries  became 

^  Johann  Nikolaus  von  Hontheim,  auxiliary  bishop  of  Trier.     His  famous  work 
was  published  in  1763. 


4IO  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

scandalously  lax  in  their  doctrines.  The  result  was  the  sup- 
pression of  the  order,  first  in  Portugal  (1759),  then  in  other 
countries,  and  finally  altogether  by  a  papal  decree  of  1773.^ 

We  shall  next  consider  the  AngHcan  Church,  whose  complete 
independence  from  the  papacy,  it  will  be  remembered,  was 
The  An-  established  by  Henry  VIII  of  England,  and  whose  doc- 
giican  trinal  position  had  been  defined  in  the  Thirty-nine 

Church  Articles  of  Ehzabeth's  reign.     It  was  the  state  Church 

of  England,  Ireland,  and  Wales,  and  had  scattering  adherents 
in  Scotland  and  in  the  British  colonies.  Like  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Church  in  France,  the  Anglican  Church  enjoyed  in  the  British 
Isles,  excepting  Scotland,  special  privileges,  great  wealth,  and 
the  collection  of  tithes  from  Anglicans  and  non-Anglicans  alike. 
It  was  intensely  national,  independent  of  papal  control  or  other 
foreign  influence,  and  patriotic  in  spirit.  It  retained  a  hierar- 
chical government  similar  to  that  of  the  Roman  Catholics.  As  in 
France,  the  bishops  were  incHned  to  use  the  emoluments  with- 
out doing  the  work  of  their  office,  while  the  country  curates 
were  very  poor. 

In  its  relations  with  others,  the  Anglican  Church  was  not 
very  liberal.  In  England,  Protestant  (Calvinistic)  Dissenters 
had  been  granted  liberty  of  worship  in  1689  (Toleration  Act) 
but  still  they  might  not  hold  civil,  military,  or  pohtical  office 
without  the  special  dispensation  of  Parliament.  Baptism,  regis- 
tration of  births  and  deaths,  and  marriage  could  be  performed 
legally  only  by  Anglican  clergymen.  Non-Anglicans  were  barred 
from  Oxford  and  could  take  no  degree  at  Cambridge  University. 

Worst  of  all  was  the  lot  of  the  Roman  Catholics.  In  Eng- 
land they  had  practically  no  civil,  political,  or  religious  rights. 
By  a  law  of  1700  ^  the  Roman  Catholic  must  abjure  the  Mass  or 
lose  his  property,  and  priests  celebrating  Mass  were  liable  to  life 
imprisonment.  In  Ireland  the  communicants  of  the  "Church 
of  Ireland"  (Anglican)  constituted  a  very  small  minority,^  while 

'  In  Russia,  where  the  order  of  suppression  was  not  enforced,  the  Jesuits  kept 
their  corporate  organization.  Subsequently,  on  7  August,  18 14,  the  entire  society- 
was  restored  by  papal  bull,  and  is  now  in  a  flourishing  condition  in  many  countries. 

2  Repealed  in  1778,  but  on  condition  that  Roman  Catholics  should  deny  the 
temporal  power  of  the  pope  and  his  right  to  depose  kings. 

'  Even  in  the  nineteenth  century,  there  were  only  about  500,000  Anglicans  out 
of  a  population  of  somewhat  less  than  6,000,000. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  411 

the  native  Roman  Catholics,  comprising  over  four-fifths  of 
the  population,  were  not  only  seriousl}'  hindered  from  exer- 
cising their  own  religion,  not  only  deprived  of  their  pohtical 
rights,  not  only  made  subservient  to  the  economic  interests  of  the 
Protestants,  but  actually  forced  to  pay  the  tithe  to  support 
English  bishops  and  curates,  who  too  often  lived  in  England, 
since  their  parishioners  were  all  Roman  Catholics. 

The  Dissenters  from  the  Anglican  Church  embraced  many 
different  creeds.  We  have  already  spoken  of  the  Calvinistic 
Presbvterians  and  Separatists.     Besides  these,  several  „   ^ 

^  ,  Protestant 

new  sects  had  appeared.     The  Baptist  Church  was  sects  in 
a  seventeenth-century  off-shoot  of  Separatism.     To  ^"sf?"**- 
Calvinistic  theology  and  Congregational  Church  gov- 
ernment, the  Baptists  had  added  a  behef  in  adult  baptism,  im- 
mersion, and  religious  liberty. 

A  group  of  persons  who  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ,  thereby 
departing  widely  from  usual  Protestantism  as  well  as  from 
traditional  CathoHcism,  came  into  some  prominence  „  .^   . 

.  Unitarians 

m  the  eighteenth  century  through  secessions  from  the 
Anglican  Church  and  through  the  preaching  of  the  scientist 
Joseph  Priestley,  and  gradually  assumed  the  name  of  Unitarians. 
It  was  not  until  1844  that  the  sect  obtained  complete  rehgious 
liberty  in  England. 

A  most  remarkable  departure  from  conventional  forms  was 
made  under  the  leadership  of  George  Fox,  the  son  of  a  weaver, 
whose  followers,  loosely  organized  as  the  Society  of 
Friends,  were  often  derisively  called  Quakers,  because 
they  insisted  that  true  religion  was  accompanied  by  deep  emo- 
tions and  quakings  of  spirit.  Although  severely  persecuted,^ 
the  Quakers  grew  to  be  influential  at  home,  and  in  the  colonies, 
where  they  founded  Pennsylvania  (1681).  Their  refusal  to  take 
oaths,  their  quaint  "thee"  and  "thou,"  their  simple  and  somber 
costumes,  and  their  habit  of  sitting  silent  in  religious  meeting 
until  the  spirit  should  move  a  member  to  speak,  made  them  a 
most  picturesque  body.  Professional  ministers  and  the  cere- 
monial observance  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  held 
to  be  forms  destructive  of  spontaneous  reHgion.  War,  they 
said,  gave  free  rein    to    un-Christian  cruelty,  selfishness,    and 

^  In  1685  as  many  as  1460  Quakers  lay  in  English  prisons. 


412  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

greed ;  and,  therefore,  they  would  not  fight.  They  were  also 
vigorous  opponents  of  negro  slavery. 

The  Methodist  movement  did  not  come  until  the  eighteenth 
century.  By  the  year  1740,  a  group  of  earnest  Oxford  students 
had  won  the  nickname  of  "  Methodists  "  by  their  absti- 
nence from  frivolous  amusements  and  their  methodical 
cultivation  of  fervor,  piety,  and  charity.  Their  leader,  John 
Wesley  (i 703-1791),  was  a  man  of  remarkable  energy,  rising  at 
four  in  the  morning,  filling  every  moment  with  work,  living 
frugally  on  £28  a  year,  visiting  prisons,  and  exhorting  his  com- 
panions to  piety.  The  Methodist  leaders  were  very  devout  and 
orthodox  Anglicans,  but  they  were  so  anxious  "to  spread  Scrip- 
tural Holiness  over  the  land"  that  they  preached  in  open  fields 
as  well  as  in  churches.  Wesley  and  other  great  orators  appealed 
to  the  emotions  of  thousands  of  miners,  prisoners,  and  ignorant 
weavers,  and  often  moved  them  to  tears.  It  is  said  that  John 
Wesley  preached  more  than  40,000  sermons. 

The  Methodist  preachers  gradually  became  estranged  from 
the  Anglican  Church,  established  themselves  as  a  new  dissenting 
sect,  and  dropped  much  of  the  Anglican  ritual.  The  influence 
of  their  preaching  was  very  marked,  however,  and  many  ortho- 
dox Anglican  clergymen  traveled  about  preaching  to  the  lower 
classes.  This  "evangelical  movement"  is  significant  because 
it  showed  that  a  new  class  of  industrial  workers  had  grown  up 
without  benefit  of  the  church  or  protection  of  the  state.  We 
shall  subsequently  hear  more  of  them  in  connection  with  the 
events  of  the  Industrial  Revolution. 

In  the  eighteenth  century,  Lutheranism  was  the  state  religion 
of  Denmark  (including  Norway),  Sweden,  and  of  several  Ger- 
man states,  notably  Prussia,  Saxony,  and  Brunswick. 
Churches  The  Lutheran  churches  retained  much  of  the  old  ritual 
on  the  2^j^(j  episcopal  government.     Ecclesiastical  lands,  how- 

ever, had  been  secularized,  and  Lutheran  pastors  were 
supported  by  free-will  offerings  and  state  subventions.  In 
Prussia,^  Denmark,  and  Sweden  the  church  recognized  the  king 
as  its  summus  episcopus  or  supreme  head. 

1  Later,  in  1817,  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  of  Prussia  were  brought  together, 
under  royal  pressure,  to  form  the  "  Evangelical  Church."  According  to  the  king, 
this  was  not  a  fusion  of  the  two  Protestant  faiths,  but  merely  an  external  union. 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  413 

Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic  churches  were  usually  called  "Re- 
formed" or  "Presbyterian"  and  represented  a  more  radical 
deviation  than  Lutheranism  from  Roman  Catholic  Reformed 
theology  and  ritual,  holding  the  Lord's  Suj^per  to  be  Churches 
but  a  commemorative  ceremony,  doing  away  with  altar-lights, 
crucifixes,  and  set  prayers,  and  governing  themselves  by  synods 
of  priests  or  presbyters.  In  the  eighteenth  century  Presby- 
terianism  was  still  the  established  religion  of  Scotland,  and  of  the 
Dutch  Netherlands.  In  France  the  Huguenots,  in  Switzerland 
the  French-speaking  Calvinists  and  German-speaking  Zwinglians, 
and  numerous  congregations  in  southern  Germany  still  repre- 
sented the  Reformed  Church  of  Calvin  and  Zwingli.^ 

One  of  the  most  noteworthy  features  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury was  the  appearance  of  a  large  number  of  doubters  of  Chris- 
tianity. In  the  comparatively  long  history  of  the  Growth  of 
Christian  Church,  there  had  often  been  reformers.  Skepticism 
who  attacked  specific  doctrines  or  abuses,  but  never  before, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  Itahan  humanists  of  the  fifteenth 
century,"  had  there  been  such  a  considerable  and  influential 
number  who  ventured  to  assail  the  very  foundations  of  the 
Christian  belief.  During  the  last  quarter  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  a  number  of  Enghsh  philosophers,  imbued  with  enthu- 
siasm for  the  discovery  of  scientific  laws,  went  on  to  apply  the 
newer  scientific  methods  to  rehgion.  They  claimed  that  the 
Bible  was  untrustworthy,  that  the  dogmas  and  cere-  . 
monies  of  the  churches  were  useless  if  not  actually 
harmful,  and  that  true  religion  was  quite  natural  in  man  and 
independent  of  miraculous  revelation.  God,  they  asserted,  had 
created  the  universe  and  estabHshed  laws  for  it.  He  would  not 
upset  these  laws  to  answer  the  foolish  prayers  of  a  puny  human 
being.  Men  served  God  best  by  discounting  miracles,  discredit- 
ing "superstition,"  and  living  in  accordance  with  natural  law. 
Just  what  this  law  was,  they  left  largely  to  the  common  sense 
of  each  man  to  determine.  As  a  result,  the  positive  side  of 
Deism,  as  the  body  of  the  new  teachings  was  called,  was  lost  in 

^  For  the  Orthodox  Church  in  Russia,  see  above,  pp.  122,  372,  380.  Some 
reforms  in  the  ritual  had  been  introduced  by  a  certain  Nikon,  a  patriarch  of  the 
seventeenth  century. 

2  See  above,  pp.  124,  182  ff. 


414  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

vagueness,  and  the  negative  side  —  the  mere  denial  of  orthodox 
Christianity  —  became  uppermost  in  men's  minds. 

Deism  was  important  in  several  ways,  especially  for  France, 
whence  it  was  carried  from  England,     (i)  For  a  large  part  of 

I  the  most  inteUigent  and  influential  classes,  it  destroyed  reverence 
for  the  Church,  and  prepared  the  way  for  the  rehgious  experi- 
ments of  the  French  Revolution.  (2)  It  gave  an  impetus  to 
philosophers  who  evolved  great  systems  and  exhibited  wonderful 
ingenuity  and  confidence  in  formulating  laws  which  would  explain 
the  why,  what,  whence,  and  whither  of  human  hfe.  (3)  While 
casting  doubt  on  the  efficacy  of  particular  religions,  it  demanded 

f  toleration  for  all.  (4)  Finally,  it  was  responsible  for  a  great 
increase  of  indifference  to  rehgion.  People  too  lazy  or  too  igno- 
rant to  understand  the  philosophic  basis  of  Deism,  used  the 
arguments  of  Deists  in  justification  of  their  contempt  for  religion, 
and  to  many  people  disbelief  and  intelHgence  seemed  to  be 
synonymous.  We  have  considered  Deism  here  for  its  significant 
bearing  on  the  religious  situation  in  the  eighteenth  century.  In 
the  following  section  we  shall  see  how  it  was  part  and  parcel  of 
the  scientific  and  intellectual  spirit  of  the  times. 

SCIENTIFIC    AND    INTELLECTUAL    DEVELOPMENTS   IN 
THE  EIGHTEENTH   CENTURY 

As  we  have  observed  in  an  earlier  chapter,  both  science  and 
art  flowered  in  the  sixteenth  century.  The  great  men  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  however,  devoted  themselves  al- 
most exclusively  to  science ;  and  the  artists  of  the 
time  were  too  insincere,  too  intent  upon  pleasing  shallow-brained 
and  frivolous  courtiers,  to  produce  much  that  was  worth  while. 
Great  numbers  of  plays  were  written,  it  is  true,  but  they  were 
hopelessly  dull  imitations  of  classic  models.  Imitative  and  un- 
inspired likewise  were  statues  and  paintings  and  poems.  One 
merit  they  possessed.  If  a  French  painter  lacked  force  and 
originality,  he  could  at  least  portray  with  elegance  and  charm  a 
group  of  fine  ladies  angling  in  an  artificial  pool.  Elegance, 
indeed,  redeemed  the  eighteenth  century  from  imitative  dullness 
and  stupid  ostentation :  elegance  expressed  more  often  in  per- 
fumes, laces,  and  mahogany  than  in  paint  or  marble.     The  silk- 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  415 

stockinged  courtier  accompanying  his  exquisitely  perfect  bow 
with  a  nicely  worded  compliment  was  surely  as  much  an  artist 
as  the  sculptor.  Nor  can  one  help  feeling  that  the  chairs  of 
Louis  XV  were  made  not  to  sit  in,  but  to  admire;  for  their 
curving  mahogany  legs  look  too  slenderly  delicate,  their  carved 
and  gilded  backs  too  uncomfortable,  for  mere  use.  Chairs  and 
fine  gentlemen  were  alike  useless,  and  alike  elegant. 

More  substantial  were  the  achievements  of  eighteenth-century 
scientists.  From  philosophers  of  an  earlier  century  —  Francis 
Bacon  (1561-1626)  and  Rene  Descartes  (1596-1650)  The  New 
—  they  learned  to  question  everything,  to  seek  new  Science 
knowledge  by  actual  experiment,  to  think  boldly.  You  must 
not  blindly  believe  in  God,  they  said,  you  must  first  prove  His 
existence.  Or,  if  you  will  learn  how  the  body  is  made,  it  will 
not  do  to  believe  what  Hippocrates  or  any  other  Greek  authority 
said  about  it ;  you  must  cut  rabbits  open  and  see  with  your 
own  eyes  where  heart  and  lungs  are  hidden  beneath  the  coat 
of  fur.  Seeing  and  thinking  for  oneself  were  the  twin  principles 
of  the  new  scientific  method. 

The  new  science  found  many  able  exponents  in  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries,  and  of  them  all  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton- (1646-1727)  was  probably  the  most  illustrious.  Isaac 
Coming  from  a  humble  family  in  a  little  English  Newton 
village,  Newton  at  an  early  age  gave  evidence  of  uncommon 
intelligence.  At  Cambridge  University  he  astonished  his  pro- 
fessors and  showed  such  great  skill  in  mathematics  that  he  was 
given  a  professor's  chair  when  only  twenty-three  years  old. 

For  Descartes,  Newton  conceived  great  admiration,  and,  like 
Descartes,  he  applied  himself  to  experimentation  as  well  as  to 
formal  mathematics.  His  boyish  ingenuity  in  the  construction 
of  windmills,  kites,  and  water-clocks  was  now  turned  to  more 
serious  ends.  Like  other  scientists  of  the  day,  he  experimented 
with  chemicals  in  his  laboratory,  and  tried  different  combina- 
tions of  lenses,  prisms,  and  reflectors,  until  he  was  able  to  design 
a  great  telescope  with  which  to  observe  the  stars. 

His  greatest  achievement  was  in  astronomy.  Galileo,  Coper- 
nicus, and  other  investigators  had  already  concluded  that  the 
earth  is  but  one  of  many  similar  bodies  moving  around  the  sun, 
which  in  turn  is  only  one  of  countless  suns  —  for  every  star  is  a 


m 


416  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

sun.  Now  Newton  wondered  what  held  these  mighty  spheres 
in  their  places  in  space,  for  they  appeared  to  move  in  definite 
and  well-regulated  orbits  without  any  visible  support  or  prop. 
It  is  alleged  that  the  answer  to  the  problem  was  suggested  by 
the  great  philosopher's  observation  of  a  falling  apple.  The 
same  invisil3le  force  that  made  the  apple  fall  to  the  ground  must, 
he  is  said  to  have  reasoned,  control  the  moon,  sun,  and  stars. 
The  earth  is  pulled  toward  the  sun,  as  the  apple  to  the  earth, 
but  it  is  also  pulled  toward  the  stars,  each  of  which  is  a  sun 
so  far  away  that  it  looks  to  us  very  small.  The  result  is  that 
the  earth  neither  falls  to  the  sun  nor  to  any  one  star,  but  moves 
around  the  sun  in  a  regular  path. 

This  suggestive  principle  by  which  every  body  in  the  universe 
is  pulled  towards  every  other  body,  Newton  called  the  law  of 
universal  gravitation.  Newton's  law  ^  was  expressed  in  a  simple 
mathematical  formula  ^  by  means  of  which  physics  and  astron- 
omy were  developed  as  mathematical  sciences.  When  a  modern 
astronomer  foretells  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  or  discusses  the  course 
of  a  comet,  or  when  a  physicist  informs  us  that  he  has  weighed 
the  earth,  he  is  depending  directly  or  indirectly  upon  Newton's 
discovery. 

The  brilliance  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  individual  achievement 

should  not  obscure  the  fame  of  a  host  of  other  justly  celebrated 

scientists  and  inventors.     One  of  Newton's  contem- 

mentai  and    poraries,  the  German  philosopher  Gottfried  Wilhelm 

Applied         YQj-^  Leibnitz  (i 646-1 716),  elaborated  a  new  and  valua- 

Science  \      ^         §       /  y 

ble  branch  of  mathematics,  the  differential  calculus,^ 
which  has  proved  to  be  of  immense  service  in  modern  engineer- 
ing. At  the  same  time,  the  fi.rst  experiments  were  being  made 
with  the  mysterious  potencies  of  electricity :  the  electrical 
researches  of  Benjamin  Franklin  (i 706-1 790),  his  discovery  that 
flashes  of  lightning  are  merely  electrical  phenomena  and  his 
invention  of  the  lightning  rod  are  too  familiar  to  need  repeating ; 
the  work  of  Luigi  Galvani  (i 737-1 798)  and  of  Count  Alessandro 

^  It  was  really  only  a  shrewd  guess,  but  it  appears  to  work  so  well  that  we  often 
call  it  a  "law." 

2  "The  force  increases  directly  in  proportion  to  the  product  of  the  masses,  and 
inversely  in  proportion  to  the  square  of  the  distance." 

*The  credit  for  this  achievement  was  also  claimed  by  Newton. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  417 

Volta  (1745-1827),  two  famous  Italian  physicists,  is  less  well 
known,  but  their  labors  contributed  much  to  the  development 
of  physical  science,  and  their  memory  is  perpetuated  whenever 
the  modern  electrician  refers  to  a  "voltaic  cell"  or  when  the 
tinsmith  speaks  of  "galvanized"  iron.  In  this  same  period,  the 
first  important  advances  were  made  in  the  construction  of 
balloons,  and  the  conquest  of  the  air  was  begun.  In  the  eight- 
eenth century,  moreover,  the  foundations  of  modern  chemistry 
were  laid  by  Joseph  Priestley  (i 733-1804),  Antoine  Laurent 
Lavoisier  (1743-1794),  and  Henry  Cavendish  (1731-1810) ; 
oxygen  was  discovered,  water  was  decomposed  into  its  elements, 
and  the  nomenclature  of  modern  chemistry  had  its  inception. 
In  medicine  and  surgery,  too,  pioneer  work  was  done  by  John 
Hunter  (17 28-1 793),  a  noted  Scotch  surgeon  and  anatomist, 
and  by  the  Swiss  professor  Albrecht  von  Haller  (1708-1777), 
the  "father  of  m-odern  physiology"  ;  the  facts  which  eighteenth- 
century  physicians  discovered  regarding  the  circulation  of  the 
blood  made  possible  more  intelligent  and  more  effective  methods 
of  treating  disease ;  and  just  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, Edward  Jenner  (i 749-1823),  an  English  physician,  demon- 
strated that  the  dread  disease  of  smallpox  could  be  prevented  by 
vaccination.  Geographical  knowledge  was  vastly  extended  by 
the'  voyages  of  scientific  explorers,  Hke  the  English  navigator 
Captain  James  Cook  ^  (1728-1779)  and  the  French  sailor  Louis 
de  Bougainville  (i 729-181 1),  in  the  hitherto  uncharted  expanses 
of  the  southern  Pacific.  Furthermore,  since  these  explorers 
frequently  brought  home  specimens  of  unfamiliar  tropical  ani- 
mals and  plants,  rich  material  was  provided  for  zoology  and 
botany,  which,  thanks  to  the  efforts  of  the  Frenchman  Georges 
de  Buffon  (1707-1788)  and  of  the  Swede  Carolus  Linnaeus  (1707- 
1778),  were  just  becoming  important  sciences. 

One  reason  for  the  rapid  development  of  natural  science  in 
the  eighteenth  century  was  the  unprecedented  popularity  and 
favor  enjoyed  by  scientists.  Kings  granted  large  pensions  to 
scientists ;  British  ministers  bestowed  remunerative  offices,  and 
petty  princes  showered  valuable  gifts  upon  them.  Pretentious 
observatories  with  ponderous   telescopes  were  built,    often  at 

^  The  Captain  Cook  who  discovered,  or  rediscovered,  Australia.  See  above, 
P-  340- 

2E 


4i8  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

public  expense,  in  almost  every  country  of  Europe.  Groups 
of  learned  men  were  every^vhere  banded  together  in  "acad- 
Popuiarity  cmies "  or  "societies."  The  "Royal  Society"  of 
of  the  New  London,  founded  in  1662,  listened  to  reports  of  the 
Science  latest  achievements  in  mathematics,  astronomy,  and 

physics.  The  members  of  the  Academic  franqaise  (French 
Academy)  were  granted  pensions  by  Louis  XIV  and  even 
reckoned  Newton  among  their  honorary  members. 

Never  before  had  there  been  such  interest  in  science,  and 
never  before  had  there  been  such  opportunity  to  learn.  Print- 
ing was  now  well  developed ;  the  learned  societies  and  observa- 
tories published  reports  of  the  latest  developments  in  all  branches 
of  knowledge.  Encyclopedias  were  gotten  out  professing  to 
embody  in  one  set  of  volumes  the  latest  information  relative  to 
all  the  new  sciences.  Books  were  too  expensive  for  the  common 
person,  but  not  so  for  the  bourgeoisie,  nor  for  numerous  nobles. 
Indeed,  it  became  quite  the  fashion  in  society  to  be  a  "savant," 
a  scientist,  a  philosopher,  to  dabble  in  chemistry,  perhaps  even 
to  have  a  little  laboratory  or  a  telescope,  and  to  dazzle  one's 
friends  with  one's  knowledge. 

It  seemed  as  if  the  golden  age  was  dawning  :  the  human  inind 
seemed  to  be  awakening  from  the  slumber  of  centuries  to  con- 
The  Spirit  ^^^^  ^^^  world,  to  unravel  the  mysteries  of  hfe,  and 
of  Progress  to  discovcr  the  secrets  of  the  universe.  Confident  that 
an  e  orm  ^^^y  ^  httle  thought  would  be  necessary  to  free  the 
world  from  vice,  ignorance,  and  superstition,  thinkers  now 
turned  boldly  to  attack  the  vexing  problems  of  religion  and 
morality,  to  criticize  state,  society,  and  church,  and  to  point  the 
way  to  a  new  and  earthly  paradise. 

This  tendency  —  this  enthusiasm  —  has  usually  been  styled 
"rationahsm"  because  its  champions  sought  to  make  everything 
rational  or  reasonable.  Its  foremost  representatives  were  to  be 
found  in  Great  Britain  between  1675  and  1725.  They  wrote 
many  books  discussing  abstruse  problems  of  philosophy,  which 
can  have  slight  interest  for  us ;  but  certain  ideas  they  had  of 
very  practical  importance,  ideas  which  probably  found  their 
most  notable  expression  in  the  writings  of  John  Locke  (1632- 
1704).  Locke  argued  (i)  that  all  government  exists,  or  should 
exist,  by  consent  of  the  governed  —  by  a  "social"  contract,  as 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  419 

it  were ;  (2)  that  education  should  be  more  widespread  ;  (3)  that 
superstition  and  religious  formalism  should  not  be  allowed  to 
obscure  "natural  laws,"  and  "natural  religion";  and  (4)  that 
religious  toleration  should  be  granted  to  all  but  atheists. 

The  ideas  of  these  English  philosophers  were  destined  to 
exercise  a  far  greater  influence  upon  France  than  upon  England. 
They  found  delighted  admirers  among  the  nobility,  ardent 
disciples  among  the  bourgeoisie,  and  eloquent  apostles  in  Vol- 
taire, Diderot,  and  Rousseau. 

Without  a  doubt,  the  foremost  figure  in  the  intellectual  world 
of  the  eighteenth  century  was  Francois  Marie  Arouet,  or,  as  he 
called  himself,  Frangois  M.  A.  de  Voltaire  (i 694-1 778).  . 

Even  from  his  boyhood  he  had  been  a  clever  hand  at 
turning  verses,  and  had  fully  appreciated  his  own  cleverness. 
His  businessHke  father  did  not  enjoy  the  boy's  poetry,  especially 
if  it  was  written  when  young  Francois  should  have  been  study- 
ing law.  But  Francois  had  a  inind  of  his  own ;  he  liked  to  show 
his  cleverness  in  gay  society  and  relished  making  witty  rhymes 
about  the  foibles  of  public  ministers  or  the  stupidity  of  the 
prince  regent  of  France. 

His  sharp  tongue  and  sarcastic  pen  were  a  source  of  constant 
danger  to  Voltaire.  For  libel  the  regent  had  him  imprisoned 
a  year  in  the  Bastille.  Some  years  later  he  was  beaten  by  the 
lackeys  of  an  offended  nobleman,  again  sent  to  the  Bastille, 
and  then  exiled  three  years  in  England. 

At  times  he  was  the  idol-  of  Paris,  applauded  by  philosophes 
and  petted  by  the  court,  or  again  he  would  be  a  refugee  from 
the  wrath  of  outraged  authorities.  For  a  great  part  of  his  Hfe 
he  resided  at  Cirey  in  Lorraine,  —  with  his  mistress,  his  books, 
his  half-iinished  plays,  and  his  laboratory  —  for  Voltaire,  like  all 
philosophes,  had  to  play  at  science.  Here  he  lived  in  constant 
readiness  to  flee  over  the  border  if  the  king  should  move  against 
him.  For  a  time  he  lived  in  Germany  as  the  protege  of  Frederick 
the  Great,  but  he  treated  that  irascible  monarch  with  neither 
tact  nor  deference,  and  soon  left  Berlin  to  escape  the  king's  ire. 
He  Adsited  Catherine  the  Great  of  Russia.  He  also  lived  at 
Geneva  for  a  while,  but  even  there  he  failed  to  keep  peace  with 
the  magistrates. 

Such  conflicts  with  established  authority  only  increased  his 


420  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

fame.  Moreover,  his  three  years'  exile  in  England  (17  26-1 7  29) 
had  been  of  untold  value,  for  they  had  given  him  a  first-hand 
acquaintance  with  English  rationalism.  He  had  been  brought 
up  to  discount  rehgious  "superstition,"  but  the  EngHsh  thinkers 
provided  him  with  a  well-considered  philosophy.  Full  of  en- 
thusiasm for  the  ideas  of  his  Enghsh  friends,  he  wrote  Letters 
on  the  English  —  a  triumph  of  deistic  philosophy  and  sarcastic 
criticism  of  church  and  society. 

The  opinions  which  Voltaire  henceforth  never  ceased  to  ex- 
pound had  long  been  held  by  Enghsh  rationaUsts.  He  com- 
bined (i)  admiration  for  experimental  science  with  (2)  an  exalted 
opinion  of  his  own  abihty  to  reason  out  the  "natural  laws" 
which  were  supposed  to  He  at  the  base  of  human  nature,  religion, 
society,  the  state,  and  the  universe  in  general.  (3)  He  was  a 
typical  Deist,  thinking  that  the  God  who  had  made  the  myriad 
stars  of  the  firmament  and  who  had  promulgated  eternal  laws 
for  the  universe,  would  hardly  concern  Himself  with  the  soul 
of  Pierre  or  Jean.  To  him  all  priests  were  impostors,  and  sacra- 
ments meaningless  mummery,  and  yet  he  would  not  abolish 
religion  entirely.  Voltaire  often  said  that  he  believed  in  a 
"natural  religion,"  but  never  explained  it  fully.  Indeed,  he 
was  far  more  interested  in  tearing  down  than  in  building  up, 
and  disposed  rather  to  scoff  at  the  priests,  teachings,  and  prac- 
tices of  the  Catholic  Church  than  to  convert  men  to  a  better 
religion.  (4)  Likewise  in  his  criticism  of  government  and  of 
society,  he  confined  himself  mostly  to  bitter  denunciations  of 
contemporaneous  conditions,  without  offering  a  substitute  or 
suggesting  practical  reforms.  His  nearest  approach  to  the  prac- 
tical was  his  admiration  for  Enghsh  institutions,  but  he  never 
explained  how  the  "liberties"  of  England  were  to  be  transplanted 
into  France. 

Voltaire  was  not  an  acutely  original  thinker.  Nevertheless, 
his  innumerable  tragedies,  comedies,  histories,  essays,  and  letters 
established  his  reputation  as  the  most  versatile  and  accomphshed 
writer  of  his  age.  But  all  the  "hundred  volumes"  of  Voltaire 
are  rarely  read  to-day.  They  are  clever,  to  be  sure,  witty, 
graceful,  —  but  admittedly  superficial.  He  thought  that  he 
could  understand  at  a  glance  the  problems  upon  which  more 
earnest  men  had  spent  their  lives ;   he  would  hurriedly  dash  off 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  421 

a  tragedy,  or  in  spare  moments  write  a  pretentious  liistory. 
He  was  not  always  accurate  but  he  was  always  clever. 

Let  us  remember  him  as,  at  the  age  of  eighty-four,  he  pays  a 
famous  visit  to  Paris,  —  a  sprightly  old  man  with  wrinkled  face, 
and  with  sharp  old  eyes  peering  out  from  either  side  of  the  long 
nose,  beaming  with  pride  at  the  flattery  of  his  admirers,  spar- 
kling with  pleasure  as  he  makes  a  witty  repartee.  The  ladies 
call  him  a  most  amusing  old  cynic.  Cynic  he  is,  and  old.  His 
hfe  work  has  been  scoffing.  Yet  Voltaire  is  unquestionably  the 
intellectual  dictator  of  Europe.  His  genius  for  satire  and  his 
fearless  attacks  on  long-standing  abuses  have  made  him  hated, 
and  feared,  and  admired.  He  has  given  tone  and  character  to 
the  Old  Regime. 

Voltaire  was  not  alone  in  the  work  of  spreading  discontent. 
Less  famous  but  hardly  less  brilHant  or  versatile,  was  Denis 
Diderot  (17 13-1784).     His  great  achievement  was  the  ^j^^j.^^ 
editing   of  the  Encyclopedia.     The   gathering  of  all  and  the 
human  knowledge  into  one  set  of  volumes  — •  an  ency-  ^^^^^°' 
clopedia  —  had  been  for  generations  a  favorite   idea 
in  Europe.     Diderot  associated  with  himself  the  most  distin- 
guished mathematicians,   astronomers,   scientists,   and  philoso- 
phers of  the  time  in  the  compilation  of  a  work  which  in  seventeen 
volumes  ^  undertook  to  summarize  the  latest  findings  of  the 
scholarship  of  the  age.     Over  four  thousand  copies  had  been 
subscribed  when  the  Encyclopedia  appeared  in  1765.     It  proved 
to   be   more  than  a  monument  of  learning :   it  was  a  mani- 
festo   of    radicahsm.     Its    contributors    were    the    apostles    of 
rationahsm  and  deism,^  and  their  criticism  of  current  ideas  about 
religion,  society,  and  science  won  many  disciples  to  the  new 
ideas. 

The  mission  of  Voltaire  and  the  Encyclopedists  (as  the  editors 
of  the  Encyclopedia  are  called)  was  to  disseminate  knowledge 
and  to  destroy  prejudice,  especially  in  religion.  Practical  specific 
reforms  were  suggested  by  Montesquieu,  Rousseau,  Beccaria, 
and  Adam  Smith. 

Montesquieu  (1689-17 5 5),  a  French  lawyer-nobleman,  a  stu- 
dent of  natural  science,  and  an  admirer  of  Newton,  was  the  fore- 

^  Not  counting  pictorial  supplements. 

2  Some  went  even  further  and  practically  denied  the  existence  of  God. 


422  HISTORY  OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

most  writer  of  the  eighteenth  century  on  the  practice  of  govern- 
ment. In  his  Persian  Letters,  and  more  especially  in  The 
Montes-  Spirit  of  the  Laws  (1748),  he  argued  that  govern- 
quieu  ment  is  a  compUcated  matter  and,  to  be  successful, 

must  be  adapted  to  the  pecuUarities  of  a  particular  people.  Theo- 
retically he  preferred  a  repubhc,  and  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  consciously  embodied  many  of  his  theories.  Prac- 
tically, he  considered  the  government  of  Great  Britain  very 
admirable,  and  although  it  sheltered  many  abuses,  as  we  shall 
presently  see/  nevertheless  he  urged  the  French  to  pattern  their 
pohtical  organization  after  it.  Moderation  was  the  motto  of 
Montesquieu. 

A  more  radical  reformer  was  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau  (1712- 

1778).     In  his  Hfe  Rousseau  was  everything  he  should  not  have 

been.     He  was  a  failure  as  footman,  as  servant,  as 

Rousseau  .  .  ^ 

tutor,  as  secretary,  as  music  copier,  as  lace  maker.  He 
wandered  in  Turin,  Paris,  Vienna,  London.  His  immorality 
was  notorious,  —  he  was  not  faithful  in  love,  and  his  children 
were  sent  to  a  foundling  asylum.  He  was  poverty-stricken,  dis- 
honest, discontented,  and,  in  his  last  years,  demented. 

Yet  this  man,  who  knew  so  little  how  to  Hve  his  own  hfe, 
exercised  a  wonderful  influence  over  the  Hves  of  others.  Sordid 
as  was  his  career,  the  man  himself  was  not  without  beautiful 
and  generous  impulses.  He  loved  nature  in  an  age  when  other 
men  simply  studied  nature.  He  liked  to  look  at  the  clear  blue 
sky,  or  to  admire  the  soft  green  fields  and  shapely  trees,  and  he 
was  not  ashamed  to  confess  it.  The  emotions  had  been  for- 
gotten while  philosophers  were  praising  the  intellect :  Rousseau 
reminded  the  eighteenth  century  that  after  all  it  may  be  as  sane 
to  enjoy  a  sunset  as  to  solve  a  problem  in  algebra.  Rousseau 
possessed  the  soul  of  a  poet. 

To  him  right  feeling  was  as  important  as  right  thinking,  and 
in  this  respect  he  quarreled  with  the  rationalists  who  claimed 
that  common  sense  alone  was  worth  while.  Rousseau  was  a 
Deist  —  at  most  he  beHeved  but  vaguely  in  a  ''Being,  whatever 
He  may  be,  Who  moves  the  universe  and  orders  all  things." 
But  he  detested  the  cold  reasoning  of  philosophers  who  conceived 
of  God  as  too  much  interested  in  watching  the  countless  stars 

1  See  below,  pp.  432  ff. 


"LIBERTY,   EQU.\LITY,   FRATERNITY"  423 

obey  His  eternal  laws,  to  stoop  to  help  puny  mortals  with  their 
petty  affairs.  "O  great  philosophers!"  cried  Rousseau,  ''How 
much  God  is  obhged  to  you  for  your  easy  methods  and  for  spar- 
ing Him  work."  And  again  Rousseau  warns  us  to  "  flee  from 
those  [Voltaire  and  his  like]  who,  under  the  pretense  of  explain- 
ing nature,  sow  desolating  doctrines  in  the  hearts  of  men,  and 
whose  apparent  skepticism  is  a  hundred  times  more  .  .  .  dog- 
matic" than  the  teachings  of  priests.  Rousseau  was  not  an  or- 
thodox Christian,  nor  a  calmly  rational  Deist ;  he  simply  felt  that 
"to  love  God  above  all  things,  and  your  neighbor  as  yourself,  is 
the  sum  of  the  law." 

This  he  reproached  the  philosophers  with  not  doing.  Rousseau 
had  seen  and  felt  the  bitter  suffering  of  the  poor,  and  he  had  per- 
ceived the  cynical  indiff'erence  with  which  educated  men  often 
regarded  it.  Science  and  learning  seemed  to  have  made  men 
only  more  selfish.  Indeed,  the  ignorant  peasant  seemed  to  him 
humbler  and  more  virtuous  than  the  pompous  pedant.  In  a 
passionate  protest  —  his  Discourse  on  Arts  and  Sciences  (1749)  — 
Rousseau  denounced  learning  as  the  badge  of  selfishness  and 
corruption,  for  it  was  used  to  gratify  the  pride  and  childish 
curiosity  of  the  rich,  rather  than  to  right  the  wrongs  of  the  poor. 

In  fact,  it  were  better,  he  contended,  that  all  men  should  be 
savages,  than  that  a  few  of  the  most  cunning,  cruel,  and  greedy 
should  make  slaves  of  the  rest.  His  love  of  nature,  his  con- 
tempt for  the  silly  showiness  and  shallow  hypocrisy  of  eighteenth- 
century  society,  made  the  idea  a  favorite  one.  He  loved  to 
dream  of  tlie  times  ^  when  men  were  all  free  and  equal,  when 
nobody  claimed  to  own  the  land  which  God  had  made  for  all, 
when  there  were  no  wars  to  kill,  no  taxes  to  oppress,  no  philoso- 
phers to  deceive  the  people. 

In  an  essay  inquiring  What  is  the  Origin  of  Inequality  among 
Men  (1753),  Rousseau  sought  to  show  how  vanity,  greed,  and 
selfishness  had  found  lodgment  in  the  hearts  of  these  "simple 
savages,"  how  the  strongest  had  fenced  off  plots  of  land  for 
themselves  and  forced  the  weak  to  acknowledge  the  right  of 
private  property.  This,  said  Rousseau,  was  the  real  origin  of 
inequality  among  men,  of  the  tyranny  of  the  strong  over  the 

^  It  must  be  confessed  that  here  Rousseau  was  dreaming  of  times  that  probably 
nev'er  existed. 


424  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

weak ;  and  this  law  of  private  property  "for  the  profit  of  a  few 
ambitious  men,  subjected  thenceforth  all  the  human  race  to 
labor,  servitude,  and  misery." 

The  idea  was  applied  to  government  in  a  treatise  entitled  the 
Social  Contract  (1761).  The  "social-contract"  theory  was 
not  new,  but  Rousseau  made  it  famous.  He  taught  that  govern- 
ment, law,  and  social  conventions  were  the  outcome  of  an  agree- 
ment or  contract  by  which  at  the  misty  dawn  of  history  all 
members  of  the  state  had  voluntarily  bound  themselves.  All 
governments  exercised  their  power  in  last  analysis  by  virtue  of 
this  social  contract,  by  will  of  the  people.  Laws,  therefore, 
should  be  submitted  to  popular  vote.  The  republic  is  the  best 
form  of  government,  because  it  is  the  most  sensitive  to  the 
desires  of  the  people.  This  idea  of  "popular  sovereignty,"  or 
rule  of  the  people,  was  in  men's  minds  when  they  set  up  a 
republic  in  France  fourteen  years  after  the  death  of  Rousseau. 

Rousseau's  cry,  "Back  to  nature,"  had  still  another  aspect. 
He  said  that  children  should  be  allowed  to  follow  their  natural 
inclinations,  instead  of  being  driven  to  study.  They  should 
learn  practical,  useful  things,  instead  of  Latin  and  Greek.  "Let 
them  learn  what  they  must  do  when  they  are  men,  and  not 
what  they  must  forget." 

It  is  hard  to  fix  limits  to  the  influence  of  Rousseau's  writings. 
True,  both  the  orthodox  Cathohcs  and  the  philosophical  Deists 
condemned  him.  But  his  followers  were  many,  both  bourgeois 
and  noble.  "Back  to  nature"  became  the  fad  of  the  day,  and 
court  ladies  pretended  to  Hve  a  "natural"  hfe  and  to  go  fishing. 
His  theory  of  the  social  contract,  his  contention  that  wealth 
should  not  be  divided  among  a  few,  his  idea  that  the  people 
should  rule  themselves,  —  these  were  to  be  the  inspiration  of  the 
republican  stage  of  the  French  Revolution,  and  in  time  to  per- 
meate all  Europe. 

The  spirit  of  reform  was  applied  not  only  against  the  clergy, 
the  nobles,  the  monarchy,  and  faulty  systems  of  law  and  educa- 
tion, but  likewise  to  the  administration  of  justice. 

Beccaria  .  . 

Hitherto  the  most  barbarous  "punishments"  had 
been  meted  out.  A  pickpocket  might  be  hung  for  steaHng  a 
couple  of  shilHngs  ' ;  for  a  more  serious  offense  the  criminal  might 

^  In  England. 


"LIBERTY,   EQU.\LITY,   FRATERNITY"  425 

have  his  bones  broken  and  then  be  hiid  on  his  back  on  a  carl- 
wheel,  to  die  in  agony  while  crowds  looked  on  and  jeered.  In  a 
book  entitled  Crimes  and  Punishments  (1764),  an  Italian 
marquis  of  the  name  of  Beccaria  (i  738-1 794)  held  that  such 
punishments  were  not  only  brutal  and  barbarous,  but  did  not 
serve  to  prevent  crimes  as  effectually  as  milder  sentences, 
promptly  and  surely  administered.  Beccaria's  ideas  are  the 
basis  of  our  modern  laws,  although  the  death  penalty  still  lingers 
in  a  few  cases. 

In  yet  another  sphere  —  that  of  economics  —  philosophers 
were  examining  the  old  order  of  things,  and  asking,  as  ever,  "Is 
it  reasonable?"     As  we  have  repeatedly  observed,  p^^^^^jj 
most  governments  had  long  followed  the  mercantilist  Economy: 
plan  more  or  less  consistently.     But  in  the  eighteenth  *^^^^^^^'°' 
century,  Francois  Quesnay,  a  bourgeois  physician  at 
the  court  of  Louis  XV,  announced  to  his  friends  that  mercan- 
tihsm  was  all  wrong.     He  became  the  center  of  a  little  group  of 
philosophers   who    called    themselves    "economists,"    and   who 
taught  that  a  nation's  wealth  comes  from  farming  and  mining ; 
that  manufacturers  and  traders  produce  nothing  new,  but  merely 
exchange  or  transport  commodities.     The  manufacturers  and 
merchants    should     therefore    be    untaxed    and    unhampered. 
Laissez-faire — "Let  them  do  as  they  will."     Let  the  farmers 
pay  the  taxes.     The  foremost  disciple  of  laisser-faire  in  France 
was  Turgot  (1727-1781).     As  minister  of  finance  under  Louis 
XVI  he  attempted  to  abolish  duties  and  restrictions  on  com- 
merce, but  his  efforts  were  only  partially  successful. 

Meanwhile,  a  Scotchman,  who  had  visited  France  and  had 
known  Quesnay,  was  conveying  the  new  ideas  across  the  Channel. 
It  was  Adam  Smith,  the  "father  of  political  y^jj^^ sj^jtii 
economy."  Smith  was  quite  in  harmony  with  the 
philosophic  spirit,  with  its  "natural  rights,"  "natural  religion," 
and  "natural  laws."  He  was  a  professor  of  "moral  philosophy" 
in  the  University  of  Glasgow,  and  as  an  incident  of  his  philo- 
sophical speculations,  he  thought  out  a  system  of  political 
economy,  i.e.,  the  "laws"  by  which  a  nation  might  increase 
its  wealth,  on  the  lines  suggested  by  Quesnay.  Adam  Smith's 
famous  book  The  Wealth  of  Nations  appeared  in  1776,  the 
year  of  American  independence.     It  was  a  declaration  of  inde- 


426  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

pendence  for  industry.  Let  each  man,  each  employer  of  labor, 
each  seller  of  merchandise  follow  his  own  personal  business 
interests  without  let  or  hindrance,  for  in  so  doing  he  is  "led  by 
an  invisible  hand"  to  promote  the  good  of  all.  Let  the  govern- 
ment aboHsh  all  monopolies,'  all  restrictions  on  trade,  all  customs 
duties,  all  burdens  on  industry.  Thus  only  can  the  true  wealth 
of  a  nation  be  promoted. 

Smith's  opinions  were  so  plausible  and  his  arguments  so  in- 
genious that  his  doctrines  steadily  gained  in  influence,  and  in  the 
first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  pretty  generally  triumphed. 
In  actual  practice  the  abolition  of  restrictions  on  industry  was 
destined  to  give  free  rein  to  the  avarice  and  cruelty  of  the  most 
selfish  employers,  to  enrich  the  bourgeoisie,  and  to  leave  the 
lower  classes  more  miserable  than  ever.  The  "  Wealth  of 
Nations"  was  to  be  the  wealth  of  the  bourgeoisie.  But  mean- 
while, it  was  to  destroy  mercantihsm. 

We  have  now  completed  our  survey  of  the  social,  reUgious, 

and  intellectual  conditions  in  the  Europe  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 

,    .        tury.     Before  our  eyes  have  passed  poverty-stricken 

Conclusion  -^  ,       .  ,     .      ^   ,  i  i        . 

peasants  plowmg  their  fields,  prosperous  merchants 
who  demand  power,  frivolous  nobles  squandering  their  fives  and 
fortunes,  worldly  bishops  neglecting  their  duties,  humble  priests 
remaining  faithful,  sober  Quakers  refusing  to  fight,  earnest 
astronomers  who  search  tlie  skies,  sarcastic  Deists  who  scoff  at 
priests,  and  bourgeois  philosophers  who  urge  reform.  The  pro- 
cession is  not  quite  done.  Last  of  all  come  the  kings  in  their 
royal  ermine  and  ministers  in  robes  of  state.  To  them  we  dedi- 
cate a  new  chapter.  It  will  be  the  last  occasion  on  which  kings 
will  merit  such  detailed  attention. 

ADDITIOKAX  READING 

General  Social  Conditions  in  Eighteenth-Century  Europe.  Brief  out- 
lines: J.  H.  Robinson  and  C.  A.  Beard,  The  Development  oj  Modern  Europe, 
Vol.  I  (1907),  ch.  viii,  ix  ;  H.  E.  Bourne,  The  Revolutionary  Period  in  Europe, 
1763-1815  (1914),  ch.  i,  iii;  Clive  Day,  History  oJ Commerce  (1907).  More 
detailed  accounts:   Cambridge  Modern    History,   Vol.   VI;    and    Histoire 

^  He  was  somewhat  inconsistent  in  approving  joint-stock  monopolies  and  ship- 
ping regulations. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  427 

gen&rde,  Vol.  V'll,  ch.  xiii-xvii.  The  most  scholarly  and  exhaustive  study 
of  social  conditions  is  that  of  INIaximc  Kovalevsky,  Die  oekonomische  Ent- 
wicklung  Europas  bis  zimi  Bcginn  dcr  kapilalistischen  Wirtschaftsfonn, 
trans,  into  German  from  Russian  by  Leo  Motzkin,  7  vols.  (1901-1914), 
especially  \"ols.  \T,  VII. 

French  Society  on  the  Eve  of  the  Revolution.  Shailer  Mathews,  The 
French  Rcvohilion  (reprint,  1912),  ch.  i-v,  a  clear  summary;  E.  J.  Lowell, 
The  Eve  of  the  French  Revolution  (1892),  probably  the  best  introduction  in 
English ;  Alexis  de  Tocqueville,  The  State  of  Society  in  France  before  tfie 
Revolution  of  17 8g,  Eng.  trans,  by  Henry  Reeve,  3d  ed.  (1888),  a  brilliant 
and  justly  famous  work;  H.  A.  Taine,  The  Ancient  Regime,  Eng.  trans, 
by  John  Durand,  new  rev.  ed.  (i8g6),  another  very  celebrated  work,  better 
on  the  literary  and  philosophical  aspects  of  the  Old  Regune  than  on  the 
economic ;  Albert  Sorel,  L Europe  et  la  Revolution  franqaise,  Vol.  I  (1885) 
of  this  monumental  history  is  an  able  presentation  of  French  social  con- 
ditions in  the  eighteenth  century;  Arthur  Young,  Travels  in  France,  1787, 
1788,  and  178Q,  valuable  observations  of  a  contemporary  English  gentle- 
man-farmer on  conditions  in  France,  published  in  several  editions,  notably 
in  the  Bohn  Library.  Detailed  treatises  in  French :  Histoire  de  France, 
Vol.  IX,  Part  I  (1910),  Regne  de  Louis  XVI,  1774-178Q,  by  H.  Carre, 
P.  Sagnac,  and  E.  Lavisse,  especially  livres  III,  IV;  Emile  Levasseur, 
Histoire  des  classes  ouvrieres  et  de  rindustrie  en  France  avant  I78g,  Vol.  II 
(1901),  livre  VII;  Maxime  Kovalevsky,  La  France  economique  et  sociale  a 
la  veille  de  la  Revolution,  2  vols.  (1909-1911),  an  admirable  study  of  conunon 
life  both  rural  and  urban;  Georges  dAvenel,  Histoire  economique  de  la 
propriete,  des  salaires,  etc.,  1200-1800,  6  vols.  (1894-1912),  elaborate  treat- 
meats  of  such  topics  as  money,  land,  salaries,  the  wealthy  and  bourgeois 
classes,  the  growth  of  private  expenses,  etc. ;  Albert  Babeau's  careful 
monographs  on  many  phases  of  the  Old  Regime,  such  as  Les  voyageurs  en 
France  (1885),  La  ville  (1884),  La  vie  rurale  (1885),  Les  artisans  et  les  domes- 
tiques  (1886),  Les  bourgeois  (1886),  La  vie  militaire,  2  vols.  (1890),  Le 
village  (1891),  La  province,  2  vols.  (1894) ;  Nicolas  Kareiev,  Les  pay  sans  et 
la  question  paysanne  en  France  dans  le  dernier  quart  du  XV I  IP  siecle, 
Fr.  trans.  (1899) ;  Edme  Champion,  La  France  drapers  les  cahiers  de  i78g 
(1897).  Also  see  books  listed  under  The  French  Monarchy,  i 743-1 789, 
p.  463,  below. 

English  Society  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  Brief  surveys:  A.  L. 
Cross,  History  of  England  andGi-cater  Britain  (1914),  ch.  xliv ;  G.  T.  Warner, 
Landmarks  in  English  Industrial  History,  nth  ed.  (191 2),  ch.  xiv;  H.  de 
B.  Gibbins,  Industry  in  England,  6th  ed.  (1910),  ch.  xvii-xx;  G.  H.  Perris, 
The  Industrial  History  of  Modern  England  (1914),  ch.  i.  FuUer  treat- 
ments: H.  D.  Traill  and  J.  S.  Mann  (editors),  Social  England,  iUus.  ed., 
6  vols,  in  12  (1909),  ch.  xvi-xviii ;  W.  G.  Sydney,  England  and  the  English 
in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  2  vols.  (1891) ;  E.  S.  Roscoe,  The  English  Scene 
in  the  Eighteenth  Century  (191 2) ;  Sir  H.  T.  Wood,  Industrial  England  in 
the  Middle  of  the  Eighteenth  Century  (1910) ;    Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb, 


428  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

English  Local  Government  from  the  Revolution  to  the  Municipal  Corporations 
Act,  1688-1835,  The  Manor  and  the  Borough,  2  parts  (1908),  and  The  Story 
of  the  King's  Highway  (1913) ;  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  A  History  of  England 
in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  London  ed.,  7  vols.  (1907),  particularly  full  on 
social  and  intellectual  conditions.  Special  studies  and  monographs:  A. 
Andreades,  History  of  the  Bank  of  England,  Eng.  trans,  by  Christabel 
Meredith  (1909),  an  authoritative  review  by  a  Greek  scholar;  Sir  Walter 
Besant,  London  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  (1903),  charmingly  written  but 
not  always  trustworthy;  J.  L.  and  B.  Hammond,  The  Village  Labourer, 
1760-1832  (191 1) ;  J.  E.  Thorold  Rogers,  History  of  Agricidture  and  Prices 
in  England,  7  vols.  (1866-1902),  a  monumental  work,  of  which  Vol.  VII 
deals  with  the  eighteenth  century ;  R.  E.  Prothero,  English  Farming  Past 
and  Present  (191 2) ;  E.  C.  K.  Conner,  Common  Land  and  Inclosure  (191 2) ; 
A.  H.  Johnson,  The  Disappearance  of  the  Small  Landowner  (1909) ;  Wilhelm 
Hasbach,  A  History  of  the  English  Agricultural  Labourer,  new  ed.  trans, 
into  English  by  Ruth  Kenyon  (1908) ;  R.  M.  Garnier,  History  of  the  English 
Landed  Interest,  its  Customs,  Laws  and  Agriculture,  2  vols.  (1892-1893), 
and,  by  the  same  author,  Annals  of  the  British  Peasantry  (1895).  For 
interesting  contemporary  accounts  of  English  agriculture  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  see  the  journals  of  Arthur  Young,  A  Six  Weeks'  Tour  through  the 
Southern  Counties  (1768),  A  Six  Months'  Tour  through  the  North  of  Eng- 
land, 4  vols.  (1791),  and  The  Farmer's  Tour  through  the  East  of  England, 
4  vols.  (1791).  Also  see  books  Ksted  under  The  British  Monarchy,  1760- 
1800,  pp.  461  f.,  below. 

Special  Studies  of  Social  Conditions  in  Other  Countries.  For  Scotland : 
H.  G.  Graham,  Social  Life  in  Scotland  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  2  vols. 
(1900).  For  Hungary:  Henry  Marczali,  Hungary  in  the  Eighteenth  Cen- 
tury (1910).  For  Russia:  James  Mavor,  An  Economic  History  of  Russia, 
Vol.  I  (1914),  Book  II,  ch.  i-iv.  For  Spain  :  Georges  Desdevises  du  Dezert, 
L'Espagne  de  I'ancien  regime,  3  vols.  (1897-1904).  For  the  Germanics: 
Karl  Biedermann,  Deutschland  im  achtzehnten  Jahrhundert,  2  vols,  in  3 
(1867-1880). 

Ecclesiastical  Affairs  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  The  general  his- 
tories of  Christianity,  cited  in  the  bibliography  to  Chapter  IV,  above, 
should  be  consulted.  Additional  information  can  be  gathered  from  the 
following.  On  the  CathoUc  Church:  William  Barry,  The  Papacy  and 
Modern  Times  (191 1),  ch.  v;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  V  (1908), 
ch.  iv,  on  Gallicanism  and  Jansenism,  by  Viscount  St.  Cyres,  a  vigorous 
opponent  of  Ultramontanism ;  Histoire  generate.  Vol.  VI,  ch.  vi,  and  Vol. 
VII,  ch.  xvii,  both  by  Emile  Chenon ;  Joseph  de  Maistre,  Du  pape,  24th  ed. 
(1876),  and  De  I'eglise  gallicane,  most  celebrated  treatments  of  Gallicanism 
from  the  standpoint  of  an  Ultramontane  and  orthodox  Roman  Catholic; 
C.  A.  Sainte-Beuve,  Port-Royal,  2d  ed.,  5  vols,  (i860),  the  best  literary 
account  of  Jansenism;  R.  B.  C.  Graham,  A  Vanished  Arcadia:  being 
some  account  of  the  Jesuits  in  Paraguay,  idoy  to  1767  (1901) ;  Paul  de 
Crousaz-Cretet,  L'eglise  et  I'etat,  ou  les  deux  puissances  au  X  VHP  siecle, 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  429 

lyij-iySg  (1893),  on  the  relations  of  church  and  state;  Leon  Mention, 
Documents  relalifs  aux  rapports  du  clerge  avcc  la  royaute  de  1682  a  lySg, 
2  vols.  (1893-1903),  containing  many  important  documents.  On  Protes- 
tantism in  England:  H.  O.  Wakcman,  An  Introduction  to  the  History  of 
the  Church  of  England,  5th  ed.  (1898),  ch.  xviii,  xix ;  J.  H.  Overton  and 
Frederic  Relton,  .1  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  IJ14-1800  (1906), 
being  \'ol.  \'II  of  a  comprehensive  work  ed.  by  W.  R.  W.  Stephens  and 
William  Hunt ;  John  Stoughton,  Religion  under  Queeyi  Anne  and  the  Georges, 
1702-1800,  2  vols.  (187S) ;  H.  W.  Clark,  History  of  English  Nonconformity, 
2  vols.  (1911-1913),  especially  Vol.  II,  Book  IV,  ch.  i,  ii,  on  ]\Iethodism ; 
W.  C.  Braithwaite,  The  Beginnings  of  Quakerism  (191 2);  F.  J.  Snell, 
Wesley  and  Methodism  (1900)  ;  and  T.  E.  Thorpe,  Joseph  Priestley  (1906). 
Deism  and  the  Science  and  Philosophy  of  the  Eighteenth  Century. 
Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  \',  ch.  xxiii,  and  \'ol.  Mil,  ch.  i;  Histoire 
generalc.  Vol.  \T,  ch.  x,  and  \'ol.  \'II,  ch.  xv,  two  excellent  chapters  on 
natural  science,  1648-1788,  by  Paul  Tannery;  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  Pioneers 
of  Science  (1893) ;  Sir  Leslie  Stephen,  History  of  English  Thought  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  3d  ed.,  2  vols.  (1902),  an  interesting  account  of  the 
English  Deists  and  of  the  new  political  and  economic  theorists,  and,  by 
the  same  author,  English  Literature  and  Society  in  the  Eighteenth  Century 
(1909) ;  Edmund  Gosse,  A  History  of  Eighteenth  Century  Literature,  1660- 
1780  (191 1);  J.  M.  Robertson,  A  Short  History  of  Free  Thought,  3d  rev. 
ed.,  2  vols.  (1915),  a  sympathetic  treatment  of  deism  and  rationalism; 
C.  S.  Devas,  The  Key  to  the  World's  Progress  (1906),  suggestive  criticism 
of  the  thought  of  the  eighteenth  century  from  the  standpoint  of  a  well- 
informed  Roman  Catholic.  On  the  most  celebrated  French  philosophers 
of  the  time,  see  the  entertaining  and  enthusiastic  biographies  by  John 
(Viscount)  Morley,  Rousseau,  2  vols.  (1873),  Diderot  and  the  Encyclopcedists, 
2  vols.  (1891),  Voltaire  (1903),  and  the  essays  on  Turgot,  etc.,  scattered 
throughout  his  Critical  Miscellanies,  4  vols.  (1892-1908).  There  is  a  con- 
venient little  biography  of  Montesquieu  by  Albert  Sorel,  Eng.  trans,  by 
Gustave  JNIasson  (1887),  and  useful  monographs  by  J.  C.  Collins,  Boling- 
broke,  a  Historical  Study;  and  Voltaire  in  England  (1886).  Such  epochal 
works  as  jSIontesquieu's  Spirit  of  the  Laws,  \'oltaire's  Letters  on  the  English 
and  Philosophical  Dictionary,  and  Rousseau's  Social  Contract  and  Eniile, 
are  readily  procurable  in  Enghsh.  On  the  rise  of  political  economy :  Henry 
Higgs,  The  Physiocrats  (1897) ;  Charles  Gide  and  Charles  Rist,  A  History 
of  Economic  Doctrines  from  the  Time  of  the  Physiocrats,  Eng.  trans.  (19 15), 
Book  I,  ch.  i,  ii ;  L.  L.  Price,  .4  Short  History  of  Political  Economy  in  Eng- 
lattd  from  Adam  Smith  to  Arnold  Toynbee,  7th  ed.  (191 1) ;  R.  B.  (Viscount) 
Haldane,  Life  of  Adam  Smith  (1887)  in  the  "  Great  Writers  "  Series;  John 
Rae,  Life  of  Adam  Smith  (1895),  containing  copious  extracts  from  Smith's 
letters  and  papers;  Georges  Weulersse,  Le  mouvement  physiocralique  en 
France  de  1756  a  1770,  2  vols.  (1910),  scholarly  and  elaborate.  There  is  a 
two-volume  edition  of  Adam  Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations  (1910)  in  "  Every- 
man's Library,"  with  an  admirable  introductory  essay  by  E.  R.  A.  Seligman. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
EUROPEAN    GOVERNMENTS    IN    THE    EIGHTEENTH    CENTURY 

In  the  foregoing  chapter  we  have  seen  how  the  social  structure 
of  the  eighteenth  century  rested  on  injustice,  poverty,  and 
suffering;  we  have  hstened  to  the  complaints  of  the 
bourgeoisie  and  to  their  demands  for  reform.  Philos- 
ophers might  plead  for  reform,  but  only  the  king  could  grant 
it.  For  in  him  were  vested  all  powers  of  government :  he  was 
the  absolute  monarch. 

Such  was  the  situation  in  virtually  every  important  country 
in  Europe.  In  Great  Britain  alone  were  the  people  even  reputed 
to  have  a  share  in  the  government,  and  to  Great  Britain  the 
Voltaires  and  the  Montesquieus  of  the  Continent  turned  for 
a  model  in  politics.  Let  us  join  them  in  considering  the  pecuKar 
organization  of  the  British  monarchy,  and  then  we  shall  observe 
how  the  other  governments  of  Europe  met  the  demand  for  reform. 

THE   BRITISH  MONARCHY 

In  the  eighteenth  century,  what  was  the  British  monarchy? 

It  was,  first  of  all,  the  government  of  England  (which  included 

Wales).     Secondly,  it  embraced  Scotland,  for   since 

1603  Scotland  and  England  had  been  subject  to  the 

same  king,  and  in  1707  by  the  Act  of  Union  the  two  kingdoms  had 

„    .     ,        been  united  to  form  the  monarchy  of  "  Great  Britain," 

Scotland  .  ,  ,  .  ,  -r.     t  ^ 

with  a  common  king  and  a  common  Parliament. 

The  British  monarchy  was  properly,  then,  the  government 

of  united  England  (Wales)  and  Scotland.     But  in  addition  the 

Great  crown  had  numerous  subordinate  possessions :    the 

Britain  royal  colonies,^  and  Ireland.     For  these  dependencies 

^  The  royal  colonies  were,  in  1800:  Newfoundland  (1583),  Barbados  (1605), 
Bermudas  (i6oq),  Gambia  (c.  1618),  St.  Christopher  (1623),  Nevis  (1628),  Mont- 
serrat   (1632),  Antigua  (1632),  Honduras  (1638),  St.  Lucia  (1638),  Gold  Coast 

430 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  431 

the  home  government  appointed  governors,  made  laws,  and 
le\aed  taxes,  in  theory  at  least ;  but  they  were  possessions  rather 
than  integral  parts  of  the  monarchy. 

A  few  words  should  be  said  in  explanation  of  the  political 
status  of  Ireland  under  the  British  crown.  The  Enghsh  kings 
had  begun  their  conquests  in  that  island  as  far  back 
as  the  twelfth  century ;  and  by  dint  of  much  blood- 
shed and  many  efforts  they  had  long  maintained  possession.  In 
the  seventeenth  century  OUver  Cromwell  had  put  down  a  bitter 
revolt  and  had  encouraged  Protestant  Enghsh  and  Scotch  immi- 
grants to  settle  in  the  north  and  east,  taking  the  land  from  the 
native  Irishmen,  who  were  Roman  Catholics.  An  Irish  parlia- 
ment had  existed  since  the  middle  ages,  but  from  the  close  of 
the  fifteenth  century  its  acts  to  be  valid  required  the  approval  of 
the  Enghsh  Privy  Council,  and  from  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century  Roman  CathoUcs  were  debarred  from  it.  In  1783, 
however,  while  Great  Britain  was  engaged  in  the  War  of  American 
Independence,  the  Protestants  in  Ireland  secured  the  right  to 
make  most  of  their  own  laws,  and  ten  years  later  the  Catholic 
disquahfications  were  removed.  From  1782  to  1801,  Ireland 
retained  this  half-way  independence  ;  but  a  Protestant  minority 
actually  controlled  the  Irish  Parhament,  incurring  the  dishke 
of  the  Roman  CathoHc  Irish  and  of  the  British  government,  so 
that  in  iSoo,  following  an  Irish  revolt,  an  Act  of  Union  was  passed, 
according  to  which,  in  1801,  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  became 
the  United  Kingdom.  Thenceforth  Ireland  was  represented  by 
28  peers  and  100  Commoners  in  the  Parhament  of  the  United 
Kingdom  (often  called,  carelessly,  the  British  Parhament). 

It  may  be  said,  then,  that  except  during  the  brief  period  of 
Irish  semi-independence  (i 782-1801),  the  British  Parliament 
governed  not  only  Great  Britain,  but  Ireland  and  the  crown 
colonies  as  well.  How  the  British  monarchy  was  governed, 
we  have  now  to  discover, 

(c.  1650),  St.  Helena  (1651),  Jamaica  (1655),  Bahamas  (1666),  Virgin  Islands 
(1666),  Gibraltar  (1704),  Hudson  Bay  Territory  (1713),  Nova  Scotia  (17^3),  New 
Brunswick  (1713),  Quebec,  Ontario,  and  Prince  Edward  Island  (1763),  Dominica 
(1763),  St.  Vincent  (1763),  Grenada  (1763),  Tobago  (1763),  Falkland  (1765), 
Pitcairn  (1780),  Straits  Settlements  (1786  ff.),  Sierra  Leone  (1787),  New  South 
Wales  (1788),  Ceylon  (1795),  Trinidad  (1797),  and,  under  the  East  India  Company, 
Madras  (1639),  Bombay  (1661),  and  Bengal  (1633-1765). 


432  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

In  theory  the  king  was  still  the  ruler  of  his  kingdom.     In 
his  name   all  laws  were  made,   treaties  sealed,   governmental 
officials  appointed.     Like  other  monarchs,  he  had  his 
and  his  " Privy    Councilors"   to   advise    him,   and  ministers 

Nominal  (Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  the  Secretaries  of  State, 
the  Lord  Chancellor,  etc.)  to  supervise  various  details 
of  central  administration.  But  this  was  largely  a  matter  of 
form.  In  fact,  the  kings  of  Great  Britain  had  lost  most  of  their 
power,  and  retained  only  their  dignity;  they  were  becoming 
figureheads. 

Ever  since  the  signing  of  Magna  Carta,  back  in  12 15,  the 
English  people  had  been  exacting  from  their  sovereigns  written 
The  British  promises  by  which  the  crown  surrendered  certain  pow- 
Constitution  gj-g  Greatest  progress  in  this  direction  had  been 
made  amid  those  stirring  scenes  of  the  seventeenth  century 
which  have  been  described  already  in  the  chapter  on  the  Triumph 
of  Parhamentary  Government  in  England.  In  addition  to 
formal  documents,  there  had  been  slowly  evolved  a  body  of 
customs  and  usages,  which  were  almost  as  sacred  and  binding 
as  if  they  had  been  inscribed  on  parchment.  Taken  together, 
these  written  and  customary  limitations  on  royal  authority 
were  called  the  "British  Constitution." 

This  Constitution  hmited  the  king's  power  in  four  important 

ways,     (i)  It  deprived  him  of  the  right  to  levy  taxes.     For  his 

household  expenses  he  was  now  granted  an  allowance, 

Limitations      ^^^  ^^^  (.-^-^  List.     WilHam  III,  for  instance,  was 

on  the  '    _  '  _ 

Actual  allowed  £700,000  a  year.     (2)  The  king  had  no  right 

rtie^^ng*  either  to  make  laws  on  his  own  responsibihty  or  to 
prevent  laws  being  made  against  his  will.  The  sover- 
eign's prerogative  to  veto  Parhament's  bills  still  existed  in  theory, 
•but  was  not  exercised  after  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne.  (3)  The 
king  had  lost  control  of  the  judicial  system  {i.e.,  the  courts)  : 
he  could  not  remove  judges  even  if  they  gave  decisions  un- 
favorable to  him;  and  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  of  1679  pro- 
vided that  any  one  thrown  into  prison  should  be  told  why, 
and  given  a  fair  legal  trial.  (4)  The  king  could  not  maintain 
a  standing  army  without  consent  of  Parliament.  These  re- 
strictions made  Great  Britain  a  "limited,"  rather  than  an 
"absolute,"  monarchy. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  433 

The  powers  taken  from  the  king  were  now  exercised  by  ParHa- 
ment.  The  constitutional  conilict  of  the  seventeenth  century 
had  left  Parliament  not  onh'  in  enjoyment  of  freedom  „  ,. 

.  -  .  1     r    11  Parliament 

of  speech  for  its  members  but  with  full  power  to  levy 
taxes,  to  make  laws,  to  remove  or  retain  judges,  and  essentially 
to  determine  the  policy  of  the  government  in  war  and  in  peace. 
Parhamcnt  had  even  taken  upon  itself  on  one  celebrated  occasion 
(1689)  to  deprive  a  monarch  of  his  "divine  right"  to  rule,  to 
establish  a  new  sovereign,  and  to  decree  that  never  again  should 
Great  Britain  have  a  king  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith. 

French  philosophers  who  saw  so  much  power  vested  in  a 
representative  body  could  not  be  too  loud  in  their  praise  of 
"English  hberty."  Had  they  investigated  more  closely,  these 
same  observers  might  have  learned  to  their  surprise  that  Parlia- 
ment represented  the  people  of  Great  Britain  only  in  name. 

As  we  have  seen  in  an  earlier  chapter/  Parliament  consisted 
of  two  legislative  assembHes  or  "Houses,"  neither  one  of  which 
could  make  laws  without  the  consent  of  the  other.' 
One    of    these    houses,    the    House    of    Lords,   was  cratic  Char- 
frankly  aristocratic  and  undemocratic.     Its  members  ^^^f.  °^ 
were    the    "lords    spiritual"  —  rich    and    influential 
bishops  of  the  Anglican  Church,  —  and  the  "lords  temporal,"  or 
peers,  haughty   descendants   of   the    ancient   feudal   nobles  or 
haughtier  heirs  of  miUionaires  recently  ennobled  by  the  king.^ 
These  proud  gentlemen  were  mainly  landlords,  and  as  a  class 
they  were  almost  as  selfish  and  undemocratic  as  the  courtiers 
of  France. 

But,  the  French  philosopher  replies,  the  representatives  of 
the  people  are  found  in  the  lower  house,  the  House  of  Commons ; 
the  peers  merely  give  stability  to  the  government.     Let  us  see. 

One  thing  at  least  is  certain,  that  in  the  eighteenth  century 
the  majority  of  the  people  of  Great  Britain  had  no  voice  in 
choosing  their  "representatives."  In  the  country,  the  "knights 
of  the  shire"  were,  supposedly  elected,  two  for  each  shire  or 
county.     But  a  man  could  not  vote  unless  he  had  an  estate  worth 

^  See  above,  pp.  265  f. 

2  A  peer  was  technically  a  titled  noble  who  possessed  an  hereditary  seat  in  the 
House  of  Lords.  George  III  created  many  peers :  at  his  death  there  were  over 
300  in  all. 


434  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

an  annual  rent  of  forty  shillings,  and,  since  the  same  amount 
of  money  would  then  buy  a  good  deal  more  than  nowadays,  forty 
shillings  was  a  fairly  large  sum.  Persons  who  could  vote  were 
often  afraid  to  vote  independently,  and  frequently  they  sold 
their  vote  to  a  rich  noble,  so  that  many  ''knights  of  the  shire" 
were  practically  named  by  the  landed  aristocracy,  the  wealthy 
and  titled  landlords. 

Matters  were  even  worse  in  the  towns,  or  "boroughs."  By 
no  means  all  of  the  towns  had  representation.  Moreover,  for 
the  towns  that  did  choose  their  two  members  to  sit  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  no  method  of  election  was  prescribed  by  law ;  but 
each  borough  followed  its  own  custom.  In  one  town  the  aristo- 
cratic municipal  corporation  would  choose  the  representatives; 
in  another  place  the  gilds  would  control  the  election ;  and  in  yet 
another  city  there  might  be  a  few  so-called  "freemen"  (of  course 
everybody  was  free,  —  "freeman"  was  a  technical  term  for  a 
member  of  the  town  corporation)  who  had  the  right  to  vote,  and 
sold  their  votes  regularly  for  about  £5  apiece.  In  general  the 
town  representatives  were  named  by  a  few  well-to-do  pohticians, 
while  the  common  'prentices  and  journeymen  worked  uninter- 
ruptedly at  their  benches.  It  has  been  estimated  that  fewer 
than  1500  persons  controlled  a  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

In  many  places  a  nobleman  or  a  clique  of  townsmen  appointed 
their  candidates  without  even  the  formahty  of  an  election.  In 
other  places,  where  rival  influences  clashed,  bribery  would  decide 
the  day.  For  in  contested  elections,  the  voting  lasted  forty 
days,  during  which  time  the  price  of  votes  might  rise  to  £25  or 
more.  Votes  might  be  purchased  with  safety,  too,  for  voting 
was  public  and  any  one  might  learn  from  the  poll-book  how  each 
man  had  voted.  Not  infrequently  it  cost  several  thousand 
pounds  to  carry  such  an  election. 

We  may  summarize  these  evils  by  saying  that  the  peasants 
and  artisans  generally  were  not  allowed  to  vote,  and  that  the 
"  Rotten  methods  of  election  gave  rise  to  corruption.  But  this 
Boroughs "  -yyo^g  j^Q^  q\\  There  was  neither  rhyme  nor  reason  to 
be  found  in  the  distribution  of  representation  between  different 
sections  of  the  country.  Old  Sarum  had  once  been  a  prosperous 
village  and  had  been  accorded  representation,  but  after  the  vil- 
lage had  disappeared,  leaving  to  view  but  a  lonely  hill,  no  one 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  435 

in  England  could  have  told  why  two  members  should  still  sit 
for  Old  Sarum.  Nor,  for  that  matter,  could  there  have  been 
much  need  of  representation  in  Parhament  for  the  sea-coast 
town  of  Dunwich.  Long  ago  the  coast  had  sunk  and  the  salt- 
sea  waves  now  washed  the  remains  of  a  ruined  town.  Bosseney 
in  Cornwall  was  a  hamlet  of  three  cottages,  but  its  citizens  were 
entitled  to  send  two  men  to  Parliament. 

While  these  decayed  towns  and  "rotten  boroughs"  continued 
to  enjoy  representation,  populous  and  opulent  cities  like  Birming- 
ham, IManchester,  Leeds,  and  Sheffield  were  ignored.  They  had 
grown  with  the  growth  of  industry,  while  the  older  towns  had 
declined.  Yet  Parliamentary  representation  underwent  no 
change  from  the  days  of  Charles  II  to  the  third  decade  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  Thus  Parliament  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury represented  neither  the  different  classes  of  society  nor  the 
masses  of  population.  Politics  was  a  gentleman's  game.  The 
nobleman  who  sat  in  the  upper  house  had  his  dummies  in  the 
lower  chamber.  A  certain  Sir  James  Lowther  had  nine  pro- 
teges in  the  lower  house,  who  were  commonly  called  "  Low- 
ther's  Ninepins."  A  distinguished  statesman  of  the  time  de- 
scribed the  position  of  such  a  protege :  "He  is  sent  here  by  the 
lord  of  this  or  the  duke  of  that,  and  if  he  does  not  obey  the  instruc- 
tions which  he  receives,  he  is  held  to  be  a  dishonest  man." 

Under  conditions  such  as  these  it  is  not  hard  to  understand 
how  seats  in  ParHament  were  bought  and  sold  Uke  boxes  at  the 
opera  or  seats  in  a  stock-exchange.     Nor  is  it  surpris-  „   ,. 

.,  .,.  .,  „.  .,..      Paruamen- 

ing  that  alter  havmg  paid  a  small  fortune  for  the  privi-  tary  Bribery 
lege    of    representing    the   people,    the   worldly-wise  and  Cor- 
Commoner  should  be  mlling  to  indemnify  himself  by 
accepting  bribes,  or,  if  perchance  his  tender  conscience  forbade 
monetary   bribes,   by   accepting   a   government  post  with   fat 
salary  and  few  duties  except  to  vote  with  the  government. 

For  many  years  (1714-1761)  the  arts  of  corruption  were 
practiced  with  astonishing  success  by  a  group  of  clever  Whig 
pohticians.     As  has  been  noticed  in  an  earlier  chap-  ^,    „  ,. 

^      ,  .  .  .  ^      The  Cabinet 

ter,^  it  was  to  their  most  conspicuous  leader,  Sir  Rob- 
ert Walpole,  that  the  first  two  Georges  intrusted  the  conduct  of 
affairs ;  and  Walpole  filled  the  important  offices  of  state  with 

^  See  above,  pp.  291  f. 


436  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

his  Whig  friends.  Likewise  it  has  been  noticed'  that  during  the 
same  period  the  idea  of  the  cabinet  system  became  more  firmly 
fixed.  Just  as  Walpole  secured  the  appointment  of  his  friends 
to  the  high  offices  of  state,  so  subsequent  statesmen  put  their 
supporters  in  office.  The  practice  was  not  yet  rigid,  but  it  was 
customary  for  a  dozen  or  so  of  the  leaders  of  the  faction  in  power 
to  hold  ''cabinet"  meetings,  in  which  they  decided  in  advance 
what  measures  should  be  presented  to  Parliament.  If  a  measure 
indorsed  by  the  cabinet  should  be  defeated  by  the  Commons, 
the  leader  of  the  party  would  normally  resign,  and  the  ministers 
he  had  appointed  would  follow  his  example.  In  other  words, 
the  cabinet  acted  in  concert  and  resigned  as  a  whole. 

If  the  affairs  of  the  government  were  all  carried  on  by  the 
cabinet,  and  if  the  cabinet  depended  for  its  support  on  the 
majority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  what  remained  for  the  king 
to  do  ?     Obviously,  very  little  ! 

George  I  and  George  II  had  not  been  averse  from  cabinet- 
government  :  it  was  easy  and  convenient.  But  George  III 
„..,  (1760-1820)  was  determined  to  make  his  authority 

British  )    '        ^^        \  .      .  .  .  .  .  .  .^ 

Government  felt.  He  Wished  to  preside  at  cabinet  meetings ;  he 
under  outbribed  the  Whigs ;   and  he  repeatedly  asked  his 

George  III  .    .  .  ,  i         ,•   im       1     i     •  t    • 

ministers  to  resign  because  he  disliked  their  policies. 
Besides  the  friends  he  purchased,  George  III  possessed  a  con- 
siderable number  of  enthusiastic  and  conscientious  supporters. 
The  country  squires  and  clergy  who  believed  in  the  Anglican 
Church  and  looked  with  distrust  upon  the  power  of  corrupt 
Whig  politicians  in  Parliament,  were  quite  willing  that  a  pains- 
taking and  gentlemanly  monarch  should  do  his  own  ruling. 
Such  persons  formed  the  backbone  of  the  Tory  party  and  some- 
times called  themselves  the  "king's  friends."  With  their  sup- 
port and  by  means  of  a  liberal  use  of  patronage,  George  III  was 
able  to  keep  Lord  North,  a  minister  after  his  own  heart,  in  power 
twelve  years  (i 770-1 782).  But  as  we  have  learned,^  the  War  of 
American  Independence  caused  the  downfall  of  Lord  North,  and 
for  the  next  year  or  two,  pohtics  were  in  confusion.  During 
1 782-1 783  the  old  Whig  and  Tory  parties  ^  were  sadly  broken  up, 
and  a  new  element  was  unmistakably  infused  into  party-warfare 
by  the  spirit  of  reform. 

^  See  above,  p.  290.      ^  ggg  above,  pp.  332  ff.      '  See  above,  pp.  285  f. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALirV,    FRATERNITY"  437 

Surely,  if  ever  a  country  needed  reform,  it  was  Great  Britain 
in  1783.     The  country  was  filled  with  paupers  maintained  by 
the  taxes ;  poor  people  might  be  shut  up  in  work-  j^g^^  ^^^ 
houses  and  see  their  cliildren  carted  off  to  factories ;  Demand 
sailors  were  kidnapped  for  the  royal  navy ;   the  farm-    °'^    ^  "'^^ 
hand  was  practically  bound  to  the  soil  like  a  serf ;    over  two 
hundred  offenses,  such  as  steahng  a  shilling  or  cutting  down  an 
apple   tree,  were    punishable    by   death ;    religious  intolerance 
flourished  —  Quakers   were   imprisoned   and   Roman    Catholics 
were  debarred  from  office  and  Parliament.     And  Ireland  was 
being  ruined  by  the  selfish  and  obstinate  minority  which  con- 
trolled its  parhament. 

But  about  these  things  Enghsh  "reformers"  were  not  much 
concerned.  A  few  altruistic  souls  decried  the  traffic  in  black 
slaves,  but  that  evil  was  quite  far  from  English  shores.  The 
reform  movement  was  chiefly  directed  against  parliamentary 
corruption  and  received  its  support  from  the  small  country 
gentlemen  who  hated  the  great  Whig  owners  of  "pocket-bor- 
oughs," ^  and  from  the  lower  and  newer  ranks  of  the  bourgeoisie. 
For  the  small  shop-keepers  and  tradesmen,  and  especially  the 
rich  manufacturers  in  new  industrial  towns  like  Birmingham, 
felt  that  Parliament  did  not  represent  their  interests,  and  they 
set  up  a  cry  for  pure  politics  and  reformed  representation. 

The  spirit  of  reform  spread  rapidly.  In  the  'sixties  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  John  Wilkes,  a  squint-eyed  and  immoral 
but  very  persuasive  editor,  had  raised  a  hubbub  of 
reform  talk.  He  had  criticized  the  poHcy  of  George 
III,  had  been  elected  to  Parliament,  and,  when  the  House  of 
Commons  expelled  him,  had  insisted  upon  the  right  of  the  people 
to  elect  him,  regardless  of  the  will  of  the  House.  His  admirers 
—  and  he  had  many  —  shouted  for  "Wilkes  and  Liberty,"  elected 
him  Lord  Mayor  of  London,  and  enabled  him  to  carry  his 
point. 

The  founding  of  four  newspapers  furthered  the  reform  move- 
ment. They  took  it  upon  themselves  to  report  parHamentary 
debates,  and  along  with  information  they  spread  discontent. 
Their  activity  was  somewhat  checked,  however,  by  the  operation 
of  the  old  laws  which  punished  libelous  attacks  on  the  king  with 

1  Boroughs  whose  members  were  named  by  a  political  "patron." 


438  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

imprisonment  or  exile,  and  also  by  a  stamp  duty  of  2ld.  a  sheet 

(1789). 

Under  the  new  influence  a  number  of  Wliigs  became  advocates 
of  reform.  George  III  had  outdone  them  at  corruption;  they 
Charles  now  sought  to  reestablish  their  own  power  and  Parlia- 
james  Fox  nient's  by  advocating  reform.  Of  these  Whigs, 
Charles  James  Fox  (i  749-1806)  was  the  most  prominent.  Fox 
had  been  taught  to  gamble  by  his  father  and  took  to  it  readily. 
Cards  and  horse-racing  kept  him  in  constant  bankruptcy ; 
many  of  his  nights  were  spent  in  debauchery  and  his  mornings 
in  bed ;  and  his  close  association  with  the  rakish  heir  to  the 
throne  was  the  scandal  of  London.  In  spite  of  his  eloquence 
and  abiUty,  the  loose  manner  of  his  Hfe  mihtated  against  the 
success  of  Fox  as  a  reformer.  His  friends  knew  him  to  be  a 
free-hearted,  impulsive  sympathizer  with  all  who  were  oppressed, 
and  they  entertained  no  doubt  of  his  sincere  wish  to  bring  about 
parliamentary  reform,  complete  religious  toleration,  and  the 
aboHtion  of  the  slave  trade.  But  strangers  could  not  easily 
reconcile  his  private  life  with  his  public  words,  and  were  antag- 
onized by  his  frequent  lack  of  political  tact. 

Despite  drawbacks  Fox  furthered  the  cause  of  reform  to 
a  considerable  extent.  He  it  was  who  presided  over  a  great 
The  Pro-  niass  meeting,  held  under  the  auspices  of  a  reform 
gram  of  club,  at  which  meeting  was  drawn  up  a  program  of 
Reform  liberal  reform,  a  program  which  was  to  be  the  battle- 
cry  of  British  poUtical  radicals  for  several  generations.  It 
comprised  six  demands:  (i)  Votes  for  all  adult  males,  (2)  each 
district  to  have  representation  proportionate  to  its  population, 
(3)  payment  of  the  members  of  Parhament  so  as  to  enable  poor 
men  to  accept  election,  (4)  abohtion  of  the  property  qualifica- 
tions for  members  of  Parliament,  (5)  adoption  of  the  secret 
ballot,  and  (6)  Parliaments  to  be  elected  annually. 

Such  reform  seemed  less  likely  of  accomplishment  by  Fox 
than  by  a  younger  statesman,  Wilham  Pitt  (i 759-1806),  second 
William  ^^^  ^^  ^^^  famous  earl  of  Chatham.  When  but  seven 
Pitt  the  years  old,  Pitt  had  said:  "I  want  to  speak  in  the 
Younger  Housc  of  Commons  like  papa."  Throughout  his  boy- 
hood and  youth  he  had  kept  this  ambition  constantly  before 
him ;   he  had  studied,  practiced  oratory,  and  learned  the  arts 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  439 

of  debate.  At  the  age  of  twenty-one,  he  was  a  tall,  slender,  and 
sickly  youth,  with  sonorous  voice,  devouring  ambition,  and 
sublime  self-confidence.  He  secured  a  seat  in  the  Commons  as 
one  of  Sir  James  Lowther's  "ninepins,"  and  speedily  won  the 
respect  of  the  House.  He  was  the  youngest  and  most  promising 
of  the  politicians  of  the  day.     At  the  outset  he  was  a  Whig. 

By  a  combination  of  circumstances  young  Pitt  was  enabled 
to  form  an  essentially  new  political  party  —  the  "New  Tories." 
By  his  scrupulous  honesty  and  earnest  advocacy  of  The  "  New 
parliamentary  reform,  he  won  to  his  side  the  unreprc-  Tones " 
sented  bourgeoisie  and  the  opponents  of  "bossism."  On  the 
other  hand,  by  accepting  from  King  George  III  an  appointment 
as  chief  minister,  and  holding  the  position  in  spite  of  a  temporarily 
hostile  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons,  Pitt  won  the  respect 
of  the  Tory  country  squires  and  the  clergy,  who  stood  for  the 
king  against  Parliament.  And  finally,  being  quite  moral  him- 
self (if  chronic  indulgence  in  port  wine  be  excepted),  and  sup- 
porting a  notoriously  virtuous  king  against  corrupt  politicians 
and  against  the  gambling  Fox,  Pitt  became  an  idol  of  all  lovers  of 
"respectability." 

In  the  parliamentary  elections  of  1784  Pitt  won  a  great 
victory.  In  that  year  he  was  prime  minister  with  loyal  majorities 
in  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  with  royal  favor,  and  with  the 
support  of  popular  enthusiasm.  He  was  feasted  in  Grocers' 
Hall  in  London ;  the  shopkeepers  of  the  Strand  illuminated 
their  dwellings  in  his  honor ;   and  crowds  cheered  his  carriage. 

Reform  seemed  to  be  within  sight.  The  horrors  of  the 
slave  trade  were  mitigated,  and  greater  freedom  was  given 
the  press.  Bills  were  introduced  to  abolish  the  representa- 
tion of  "rotten"  boroughs  and  to  grant  representation  to  the 
newer  towns. 

It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  Pitt  would  have  gone  further 
had  not  affairs  in  France  —  the  French  Revolution  —  „  ,,  ^ 

Halt  of 

alarmed  him  at  the  critical  time  and  caused  him  to  Reform  in 
fear  a  similar  outbreak  in  England.^     The  government  9^^^^ 
and  upper  classes  of  Great  Britain  at  once  abandoned 
their  roles  as  reformers,  and  set  themselves  sternly  to  repress  any- 
thing that  might  savor  of  revolution. 

^  For  the  effect  of  the  French  Revolution  upon  England,  see  pp.  494  f.,  504. 


440  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Two  important  conclusions  may  now  be  drawn  from  our  study 
of  the  British  government  in  the  eighteenth  century.  In  the 
first  place,  despite  the  admiration  with  which  the 
French  philosophers  regarded  the  British  monarchy  as 
a  model  of  poHtical  liberty  and  freedom,  it  was  in  fact  both  cor- 
rupt and  oppressive.  Secondly,  the  spirit  of  reform  seemed 
for  a  time  as  active  and  as  promising  in  Great  Britain  as  in  France, 
but  from  the  island  kingdom  it  was  frightened  away  by  the 
tumult  of  revolution  across  the  Channel. 

THE  ENLIGHTENED   DESPOTS 

The  spirit  of  progress  and  reform  had  slowly  made  itself 
felt  in  Great  Britain  through  popular  agitation  and  in  Parha- 
ment.  On  the  Continent  it  naturally  took  a  different  turn,  for 
there  government  certainly  was  not  by  Parliaments,  but  by 
sovereigns  "by  the  Grace  of  God."  In  France,  Prussia,  Austria, 
Spain,  and  Russia,  therefore,  the  question  was  always,  "Will  his 
Majesty  be  cruel,  extravagant,  and  unprogressive ;  or  will  he 
prove  himself  an  able  and  Uberal-minded  monarch?" 

It  happened  during  the  eighteenth  century  that  most  of 
the  Continental  rulers  were  of  this  latter  sort  —  conscientious 
and  well-meaning.  On  the  thrones  of  Austria,  Prussia, 
Benevolent  Spain,  Portugal,  Tuscany,  Sardinia,  Bavaria,  and 
Despotism  Sweden  sat  men  of  extraordinary  abihty,  who  sought 
ConUnent  rather  the  welfare  of  their  country  than  careless  per- 
sonal pleasure. 

These  were  the  benevolent  despots.  They  were  despots, 
absolute  rulers,  countenancing  no  attempt  to  diminish  royal 
authority,  believing  in  government  by  one  strong  hand  rather 
than  by  the  democratic  many.  But  with  despotism  they  com- 
bined benevolence ;  they  were  anxious  for  the  glory  of  their 
nation,  and  no  less  solicitous  for  the  happiness  and  prosperity 
of  their  people.  Thus  the  development  of  absolute  monarchy 
and  the  rationalism  of  the  eighteenth  century  united  to  produce 
the  benevolent  despot.  For  this  reason  the  term  "enlightened" 
{i.e.,  philosophical)  despot  is  frequently  applied  to  these  auto- 
crats who  attempted  to  rule  in  the  hght  of  reason. 

One  of  the  most  successful  of  the  enlightened  despots  was 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  441 

Frederick  II  (the  Great)  of  Prussia.     In  our  chapter  on  the 

Germanies,^  we  have  seen  how  he  fought  all  Europe  ^^^^^^^y^ 

to  gain  prestige  and  power  for  Prussia ;   we  shall  now  the  Great 

see  how  he  endeavored  to  ai)ply  scientific  methods  to  °*  Prussia, 

'  '■  ■'  1740-1786 

the  government  of  his  own  country. 

With  the  major  intellectual  interests  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, Frederick  II  became  acquainted  quite  naturally.  As  a 
boy  he  had  been  fond  of  reading  French  plays,  had  learned  Latin 
against  his  father's  will,  had  filled  his  mind  with  the  ideas  of 
deistic  philosophers,  and  had  seemed  hkely  to  become  a  dreamer 
instead  of  a  ruler.  But  the  dogged  determination  of  his  father, 
King  Frederick  WilUam  I,  to  make  something  out  of  Frederick 
besides  a  l^ute-playing,  poetizing  philosopher,  had  resulted  in 
famiharizing  him  with  elaborate  financial  reports  and  monot- 
onous minutes  of  tiresome  official  transactions.  Young  Fred- 
erick, however,  learned  to  Hke  the  details  of  administration  and 
when  he  came  to  the  throne  in  1 740  he  was  not  only  enlightened 
but  industrious. 

The  young  king  had  a  clear  conception  of  his  duties,  and  even 
wrote  a  book  in  French  about  the  theory  of  government.  "The 
prince,"  he  said,  "is  to  the  nation  he  governs  what  the  head  is 
to  the  man ;  it  is  his  duty  to  see,  think,  and  act  for  the  whole 
community,  that  he  may  procure  it  every  advantage  of  which  it 
is  capable."  "The  monarch  is  not  the  absolute  master,  but  only 
the  first  servant  of  the  state."  Frederick  was  indeed  the  first 
servant  of  Prussia,  rising  at  five  in  the  morning,  working  on 
official  business  until  eleven  o'clock,  and  spending  the  after- 
noon at  committee  meetings  or  army  reviews. 

He  set  about  laboriously  to  make  Prussia  the  best  and  most 
governed  state  in  Europe.  He  carefully  watched  the  judges 
to  see  that  they  did  not  render  wrongful  decisions  or  take  bribes. 
He  commissioned  jurists  to  compile  the  laws  and  to  make  them 
so  simple  and  clear  that  no  one  would  violate  them  through 
ignorance.  He  abolished  the  old  practice  of  torturing  suspected 
criminals  to  make  them  confess  their  guilt. 

Education,  as  well  as  justice,  claimed  his  attention  ;  he  founded 
elementary  schools,  so  that  as  many  as  possible  of  his  subjects 
could  learn  at  least  to  read  and  write.     In  rehgious  affairs, 

^  See  above,  ch.  xi. 


442  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Frederick  allowed  great  individual  liberty ;  for  he  was  a 
deist,  and,  Uke  other  deists  of  the  time,  believed  in  religious 
toleration. 

More  important  even  than  justice,  education,  and  toleration, 
he  considered  the  promotion  of  material  prosperity  among  his 
people.  He  would  have  considered  himself  a  failure,  had  his 
reign  not  meant  "  good  times"  for  farmers  and  merchants.  He 
encouraged  industry.  He  fostered  the  manufacture  of  silk. 
He  invited  thrifty  farmers  to  move  from  other  countries  and  to 
settle  in  Prussia.  He  built  canals.  Marshes  were  drained 
and  transformed  into  rich  pasture-land.  If  war  desolated  a 
part  of  the  country,  then,  when  peace  was  concluded,  Frederick 
gave  the  farmers  seed  and  let  them  use  his  war-horses  before 
the  plow.  He  advised  landlords  to  improve  their  estates  by 
planting  orchards  ;  and  he  encouraged  peasants  to  grow  turnips 
as  fodder  for  cattle.  Much  was  done  to  Hghten  the  financial 
burdens  of  the  peasantry,  for  (as  Frederick  himself  declared)  if  a 
man  worked  all  day  in  the  fields,  "he  should  not  be  hounded  to 
despair  by  tax-collectors." 

Taxes  were  not  hght  by  any  means,  but  everybody  knew  that 
the  king  was  not  squandering  the  money.  Frederick  was  not 
a  man  to  lavish  fortunes  on  worthless  courtiers ;  .  he  diligently 
examined  all  accounts  ;  and  his  officials  dared  not  be  extravagant 
for  fear  of  being  corporally  punished,  or,  what  was  worse,  of 
being  held  up  to  ridicule  by  the  cruel  wit  of  their  royal  master. 

It  was  only  this  marvelous  economy  and  careful  planning 
that  enabled  Prussia  to  support  an  army  of  200,000  men  and 
to  embark  upon  a  policy  of  conquest,  by  which  Silesia  and  a 
third  of  Poland  were  won.  On  the  army  alone  Frederick  was 
willing  to  spend  freely,  but  even  in  tliis  department  he  made 
sure  that  Prussia  received  its  money's  worth.  Tireless  drill, 
strict  disciphne,  up-to-date  arms,  and  well-trained  officers 
made  the  Prussian  army  the  envy  and  terror  of  eighteenth- 
century  Europe. 

In  dwelKng  upon  his  seemingly  successful  attempts  to  govern 
in  the  light  of  reason  and  common  sense,  we  have  almost  for- 
gotten Frederick's  love  of  philosophy.  Let  us  recur  to  it  before 
we  take  leave  of  him ;  for  benevolent  despotism  was  only  one 
side  of  the  philosophical  monarch.     He  liked  to  play  his  flute 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  443 

while  thinking  how  to  outwit  Maria  Theresa;  he  delighted  in 
making  witty  answers  to  tiresome  reports  and  petitions;  he 
enjoyed  sitting  at  table  with  congenial  companions  discussing 
poetry,  science,  and  the  drama.  True,  he  did  not  encourage 
the  rising  young  German  poets  Lessing  and  Goethe.  He  thought 
their  work  vulgar  and  uninspired.  But  he  invited  literary 
Frenchmen  to  come  to  Berlin,  and  he  put  new  life  into  the  BerUn 
Academy  of  Science.  Even  Voltaire  was  for  a  time  a  guest 
at  Frederick's  court,  and  the  amateurish  poems  written  in 
French  by  the  Prussian  king  were  corrected  by  the  "prince  of 
philosophers." 

While  Frederick  was  demonstrating  that  "the  prince  is  but 
the  first  servant  of  the  state,"  Catherine  II  was  playing  the  en- 
lightened despot  in  Russia.     In  the  course  of  her  re-  . 
markable  career,^  Catherme  found  trnie  to  write  flat-  the  Great 

tering  letters  to  French  philosophers,  to  make  pres-  of  Russia 
.  ,.^.^.,  ,  1762-1796 

ents  to  Voltaire,  and  to  mvite  Diderot  to  tutor  her  son. 

She  posed,  too,  as  a  Hberal-minded  monarch,  wilhng  to  discuss 
the  advisabiHty  of  giving  Russia  a  written  constitution,  or  of 
emancipating  the  serfs.  Schools  and  academies  were  estabhshed, 
and  French  became  the  language  of  polite  Russian  society. 

At  heart  Catherine  was  little  moved  by  desire  for  real  reform 
or  by  pity  for  the  peasants.  She  had  the  heavy  whip  —  the 
knout  —  appUed  to  the  bared  backs  of  earnest  reformers.  Her 
court  was  scandalously  immoral,  and  she  violated  the  conven- 
tions of  matrimony  without  a  qualm.  For  some  excuse  or 
another,  the  promised  constitution  was  never  written,  and  the 
lot  of  the  serfs  tended  to  become  actually  worse.  To  the  gov- 
ernor of  ]\Ioscow,  the  tsarina  wrote:  "My  dear  prince,  do  not 
complain  that  the  Russians  have  no  desire  for  instruction;  if 
I  institute  schools,  it  is  not  for  us,  —  it  is  for  Europe,  where  we 
must  keep  our  position  in  pubhc  opinion.  But  the  day  when  our 
peasants  shall  wish  to  become  enhghtened,  both  you  and  I  will 
lose  our  places."  This  shows  clearly  that  while  Catherine  wished 
to  be  considered  an  enlightened  despot,  she  was  at  heart  quite 
the  reverse.  Her  true  character  was  not  to  be  made  manifest 
until  the  outbreak  of  the  French  Revolution,  and  then  Catherine 
of  Russia  was  to  preach  a  crusade  against  reform. 

^  See  above,  pp.  380  ff. 


444  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

There  were  other  benevolent  despots,  however,  who  were 
undoubtedly  sincere.  Charles  III,  with  able  ministers,  made 
Charles  III  T^^^Y  changes  in  Spain.^  The  Jesuits  were  sup- 
of  Spain,  pressed ;  the  exaggerated  zeal  of  the  Inquisition  was 
1759-178  effectually  checked ;  police  were  put  on  the  streets 
of  Madrid  ;  German  farmers  were  encouraged  to  settle  in  Spain  ; 
roads  and  canals  were  built ;  manufactures  were  fostered  ;  science 
was  patronized ;  and  the  fleet  was  nearly  doubled.  .  When 
Charles  III  died,  after  a  reign  of  almost  thirty  years,  the  revenues 
of  Spain  had  tripled,  and  its  population  had  increased  from  seven 
to  eleven  millions. 

Charles's  neighbor,  Joseph  I  of  Portugal,  possessed  in  the 
famous  Pombal  a  minister  who  was  both  a  topical  philosopher 
Joseph  I  ^^^  ^^  active  statesman.  Under  his  administration, 
of  Portugal,  industry,  education,  and  commerce  throve  in  Portugal 
1750-1777  ^g  jj^  Spain.  Gustavus  III  (i 771-1792)  of  Sweden 
similarly  made  himself  the  patron  of  industry  and  the  friend  of 
the  workingman.  In  Italy,  the  king  of  Sardinia  was  freeing  his 
serfs,  while  in  Tuscany  several  important  reforms  were  being 
effected  by  Duke  Leopold,  a  younger  brother  of  the  Habsburg 
emperor,  Joseph  II. 

Joseph  II,  archduke  of  Austria  and  emperor  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire,  carried  the  theory  of  enlightened  despotism  to 
Joseph  II  ^^^  greatest  lengths.  He  was  at  once  the  most  enthu- 
of  Austria,  siastic  and  the  most  unsuccessful  of  all  the  benevolent 
oMhrHoiy  despots.  Ill  him  is  to  be  observed  the  most  striking 
Roman  example  of  the  aims,  and  likewise  the  weaknesses,  of 

^^"^  this  generation  of  philosopher-kings. 

Before  we  consider  Joseph's  career,  it  is  important  to  under- 
stand what  his  mother,  Maria  Theresa  (i  740-1 780),  had  already 
„.  „  .  done  for  the  Habsburg  realms.  We  are  familiar  with 
age  from  her  brave  conduct  in  defense  of  her  hereditary  lands 
Maria  against  the  unscrupulous  ambition  of  Frederick  the 

Theresa 

Great.2  For  her  loss  of  Silesia  she  had  obtained 
through  the  partition  of  Poland  some  compensation  in  Galicia 
and  Moldavia.     Her  domestic  policy  is  of  present  concern. 

*  Charles  III  had  previously  been  king  of  Naples  (1735-1759)  and  had  insti- 
tuted many  reforms  in  that  kingdom. 
^  See  above,  ch.  xi. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  445 

The  troops  furnished  by  vote  of  provincial  assemblies,  she 
welded  together  into  a  national  army.  German  became  the 
official  language  of  military  officers  ;  and  a  movement  was  begun 
to  supplant  Latin  by  German  in  the  civil  administration.  The 
privileges  of  religious  orders  were  curtailed  in  the  interest  of 
strong  government ;  and  the  papal  bull  suppressing  the  Jesuits 
was  enforced.  The  universities  were  remodeled  ;  and  the  elab- 
orate system  of  elementary  and  secondary  schools,  then  estab- 
lished, survived  with  but  little  change  until  1869. 

Maria  Theresa  had  begun  reform  along  most  of  the  lines 
which  her  son  was  to  follow.  But  in  two  important  particulars 
she  was  unHke  him  and  unlike  the  usual  enhghtened  despot. 
In  the  first  place,  she  was  politic  rather  than  philosophical.  She 
did  not  attempt  wholesale  reforms,  or  bhndly  follow  fine  theories, 
but  introduced  practical  and  moderate  measures  in  order  to 
remedy  e\ils.  She  was  very  careful  not  to  offend  the  prejudices 
or  traditions  of  her  subjects.  Secondly,  Maria  Theresa  was  a 
devout  Roman  CathoHc.  Love  of  her  subjects  was  not  a  theory 
with  her,  —  it  was  a  religious  duty.  A  cynical  Frederick  the 
Great  might  laugh  at  conscience,  and  to  a  Catherine  morality 
might  mean  nothing ;  but  Maria  Theresa  remained  an  ardent 
Christian  in  an  age  of  unbehef  and  a  pure  woman  when  loose 
Hving  was  fashionable. 

Her  eldest  son,  Joseph  11,^  was  brought  up  a  Roman  CathoKc, 
and  although  strongly  influenced  by  Rousseau's  writings,  never 
seceded  from  the  Church.     But  neither  religion  nor  „  ,.  . 

.  Policies 

expediency  was  his  guiding  principle.     He  said,  "I  and  Plans 
have  made  Philosophy  the  legislator  of  my  Empire:  of  Joseph  11, 
her  logical  principles  shall  transform  Austria." 

There  was  something  very  noble  in  the  determination  of  the 
young  ruler  to  do  away  with  all  injustice,  to  relieve  the  oppressed, 
and  to  Hft  up  those  who  had  been  trampled  under  foot.  His 
ambition  was  to  make  Austria  a  strong,  united,  and  prosperous 
kingdom,  to  be  himself  the  benefactor  of  his  people,  to  protect 
the  manufacturer,  and  to  free  the  serf.  Austria  was  to  be  re- 
modeled as  Rousseau  would  have  wished  —  except  in  respect 
of  Rousseau's  basic  idea  of  popular  sovereignty. 

^  Holy  Roman  Emperor  (i  765-1 790),  and  sole  ruler  of  the  Habsburg  dominions 
(1780-1790). 


446  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

It  is  a  pity  that  Joseph  II  cannot  be  judged  simply  by  his 
good  intentions,  for  he  was  quite  unlitted  to  carry  out  whole- 
some reforms.  He  had  derived  his  ideas  from  French  philoso- 
phers rather  than  from  actual  life ;  he  was  so  sure  that  his 
theories  were  right  that  he  would  take  no  advice ;  he  was  im- 
patient and  would  brook  no  delay  in  the  wholesale  apphcation  of 
his  theories.  Regardless  of  prejudice,  regardless  of  tradition, 
regardless  of  every  consideration  of  pohtical  expediency,  he 
rushed  ahead  on  the  path  of  reform. 

To  Joseph  II  it  mattered  not  that  Austria  had  long  been 
the  stronghold  and  her  rulers  the  champions  of  Catholic  Chris- 
tianity. He  insisted  that  no  papal  bulls  should  be  pubHshed  in 
his  dominions  without  his  own  authorization ;  he  nominated 
the  bishops  ;  he  confiscated  church  lands.  Side  altars  and  vari- 
ous emblems  were  removed  from  the  churches,  not  because 
they  were  useless,  for  humble  Christians  still  prayed  to  their 
God  before  such  altars,  but  because  the  emperor  thought  side 
altars  were  signs  of  superstition.  The  old  and  well-loved  cere- 
monies were  altered  at  his  command.  Many  monasteries  were 
aboUshed.  The  clergy  were  to  be  trained  in  schools  controlled 
by  the  emperor.  And,  to  cap  the  climax,  heretics  and  Jews  were 
to  be  not  only  tolerated,  but  actually  given  the  same  rights  as 
orthodox  Catholics. 

Many  of  these  measures  were  no  doubt  desirable,  and  one  or 
two  of  them  might  have  been  accomplished  without  causing  much 
disturbance,  but  by  trying  to  reform  everything  at  once,  Joseph 
only  shocked  and  angered  the  clergy  and  such  of  his  people  as 
piously  loved  their  rehgion. 

His  political  policies,  which  were  no  more  wisely  conceived 
or  executed,  were  three  in  number,  (i)  He  desired  to  extend  his 
possessions  eastward  to  the  Black  Sea  and  southward  to  the 
Adriatic,  while  the  distant  Netherlands  might  conveniently  be 
exchanged  for  near-by  Bavaria.  (2)  He  wished  to  get  rid  of 
all  provincial  assemblies  and  other  vestiges  of  local  independ- 
ence, and  to  have  all  his  territories  governed  uniformly  by  offi- 
cials subject  to  himself.  (3)  He  aimed  to  uplift  the  lower 
classes  of  his  people,  and  to  put  down  the  proud  nobles,  so  that 
all  should  be  equal  and  all  alike  should  look  up  to  their  benev- 
olent, but  all-powerful,  ruler. 


"LIBERTY,   EQU.AJLITY,   FRATERNITY"  447 

The  first  of  these  poHcies  brought  him  only  disastrous  wars. 
His  designs  on  Bavaria  were  frustrated  by  Frederick  the  Great, 
who  posed  as  the  protector  of  the  smaller  German  states.  In  the 
Balkan  peninsula  liis  armies  fought  much  and  gained  Httle. 

His  administrative  policy  was  as  unfortunate  as  his  terri- 
torial ambition.  Maria  Theresa  had  taken  some  steps  to  sim- 
plify the  administration  of  her  heterogeneous  dominions,  but 
she  had  wisely  allowed  Hungary,  Lombardy,  and  the  Nether- 
lands to  preserve  certain  of  the  traditions  and  formulas  of  self- 
government,  and  she  did  everything  to  win  the  loyalty  and 
confidence  of  her  Hungarian  subjects.  Joseph,  on  the  other 
hand,  carried  the  sacred  crown  of  St.  Stephen  —  treasured  by 
all  Hungarians  —  to  Vienna ;  aboKshed  the  privileges  of  the 
Hungarian  Diet,  or  congress ;  and  with  a  stroke  of  the  pen 
established  a  new  system  of  government.  He  divided  his 
lands  into  thirteen  provinces,  each  under  a  mihtary  commander. 
Each  province  was  divided  into  districts  or  counties,  and  these 
again  into  townships.  There  would  be  no  more  local  privileges 
but  all  was  to  be  managed  from  Vierma.  The  army  was  hence- 
forth to  be  on  the  Prussian  model,  and  the  peasants  were  to  be 
forced  to  serve  their  terms  in  it.  German  was  to  be  the  ofl&cial 
language  throughout  the  Habsburg  realm.  This  was  all  very 
fine  'on  paper,  but  in  practice  it  was  a  gigantic  failure.  The 
Austrian  Netherlands  rose  in  revolt  rather  than  lose  their  local 
autonomy ;  the  Tyrol  did  Hkewise ;  and  angry  protests  came 
from  Hungary.  Local  liberties  and  traditions  could  not  be 
abolished  by  an  imperial  decree. 

Finally,  in  his  attempts  to  reconstruct  society,  Joseph  came 
to  grief.  He  directed  that  all  serfs  should  become  free  men, 
able  to  marry  without  the  consent  of  their  lord,  privileged  to  sell 
their  land  and  to  pay  a  fixed  rent  instead  of  being  compelled  to 
labor  four  days  a  week  for  their  lord.  Nobles  and  peasants 
ahke  were  to  share  the  burdens  of  taxation,  all  paying  13 
per  cent  on  their  land.  Joseph  intended  still  further  to  help 
the  peasantry,  for,  he  said  "I  could  never  bring  myself  to  skin 
two  hundred  good  peasants  to  pay  one  do-nothing  lord  more 
than  he  ought  to  have."  He  planned  to  give  everybody  a  free 
elementary  education,  to  encourage  industry,  and  to  make  all 
his  subjects  prosperous  and  happy. 


448  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

But  the  peasants  disliked  compulsory  military  service  and 
misunderstood  his  reforms ;  the  nobles  were  not  willing  to  be 
Failure  of  deprived  of  their  feudal  rights ;  the  bourgeoisie  was 
Joseph  II  irritated  by  his  blundering  attempts  to  encourage 
industry ;  the  clergy  preached  against  his  religious  policy.  He 
reigned  only  ten  years ;  yet  he  was  hated  by  many  and  loved 
by  none ;  he  had  met  defeat  abroad,  and  at  home  his  subjects 
were  in  revolt. 

Little  wonder  that  as  he  lay  dying  (1790)  with  hardly  friend 
or  relative  near  to  comfort  him,  the  discouraged  reformer  should 
have  sighed  :  "After  all  my  trouble,  I  have  made  but  few  happy, 
and  many  ungrateful."  He  directed  that  most  of  his  "reforms" 
should  be  canceled,  and  proposed  as  an  epitaph  for  himself 
the  gloomy  sentence:  "Here  Hes  the  man  who,  with  the  best 
intentions,  never  succeeded  in  anything."  ^ 

Joseph  II  was  not  the  only  benevolent  despot  who  met  with 
discouragement.  The  fatal  weakness  of  "enlightened  despot- 
ism"  was  its  failure  to  enlist  the  sympathy  and  sup- 
of  Benevo-  port  of  the  people.  Absolute  rulers  like  Joseph  II 
lent  Des-  tried  to  force  reforms  on  their  peoples  whether  the 
reforms  were  popularly  desired  or  not.  As  a  result, 
few  of  their  measures  were  lasting,  and  ingratitude  was  uniformly 
their  reward. 

If  all  kings  had  possessed  the  supreme  abihty  and  genius  of 
a  Frederick  the  Great,  enlightened  despotism  might  still  be  in 
vogue.  The  trouble  was  that  even  well-meaning  monarchs  like 
Joseph  II  were  unpractical ;  and  many  sovereigns  were  not 
even  well-meaning.  In  Prussia,  the  successor  of  Frederick  the 
Great,  King  Frederick  William  II,  had  neither  abihty  nor  char- 
acter ;  his  weak  rule  undid  the  work  of  Frederick.  The  same 
thing  happened  in  other  countries :  weakness  succeeded  ability, 
extravagance  wasted  the  fruits  of  economy,  and  corruption  ruined 
the  work  of  reform.  Absolute  monarchy  without  good  inten- 
tions proved  terribly  oppressive. 

*  The  epitaph  was  not  quite  true.  The  serfs  in  Austria  retained  at  least  part 
of  the  liberty  he  had  granted. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  449 

THE   FRENCH   MONARCHY 

Li  no  country  was  the  evil  side  of  absolutism  exhibited 
so  unmistakably  as  in  France.  During  the  eighteenth  century 
the  French  government  went  from  bad  to  worse,  until  at  last  it 
was  altered  not  by  peaceful  reform  but  by  \dolent  revolution. 

As  far  as  their  actual  condition  was  concerned,  the  people 
of  France  were,  on  the  whole,  better  off  than  most  Germans 
or  Italians.     Next  to  England,  France  had  the  most 
numerous,  prosperous,  and  intelligent  middle  class ;  peopie 
and  her  peasants  were  slightly  above  the  serfs  of  other  better  off 
Continental  countries.     But  the  very  fact  that  in  ma-  Ne^hboi^s 
terial  well-being  they  were  a  little  better  off  than  their 
neighbors,  made  the  French  people  more  critical  of  their  gov- 
ernment.    The  lower  classes  had  not  all  been  ground  down  until 
they  were  mere  slaves  without  hope  or  courage;    on  the  con- 
trary, there  were  many  sturdy  farmers  and  thrifty  artisans  who 
hoped    for   better  days    and   bitterly    resented   inequalities  in 
society  and  abuses  in  the  government.     The  bourgeoisie  was 
even  less  inclined  to  bow  to  tyranny ;   it  was  numerous,  intelli- 
gent, wealthy,  and  influential ;   it  could  see  the  mistakes  of  the 
royal  administration  and  was  hopeful  of  gaining  a  voice  in  the 
government.     Thus,  the  people  of  France  were  keener  to  feel 
wrongs  and  to  resent  the  injustice  of  undutiful  monarchs. 

Let  us  glance  at  the  crying  abuses  in  the  French  state  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  then  we  shall  understand  how  great  was 
the  guilt  of  that  pleasure-loving  despot — Louis  XV  (171 5-1 774). 

The  French  administrative  system  was  confused  and  oppres- 
sive.    In  theory,  it  was  quite  simple  —  the  govern-  The  Ad- 
ment  was  the  king.     As    Louis    XV    haughtily  re-  ministration 
marked:     "The    sovereign   authority  is  vested  in  my  person 
.  .  .  the  legislative  power  exists  in  myself  alone  -  •  •  r^r^   xr- 
my  people  are  one  only  with  me  ;    national  rights  and 
national  interests  are  necessarily  combined  with  my  own  and 
only  rest  in  my  hands." 

But  in  practice,  the  king  could  not  alone  make  laws,  keep 
order,  and  collect  taxes,  especially  when  he  spent  whole  days 
hunting  or  gambling.  He  contented  himself  with  spending  the 
state  money,  getting  into  wars,  and  occasionally  interfering  with 
the  work  of  his  ministers.     And  it  was  necessary  to  intrust  the 


450  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

actual  conduct  of  affairs  to  a  complicated  system  or  no-system 
of  royal  officials. 

The  highest  rung  in  the  ladder  of  officialdom  was  the  Royal 
Council.  It  was  composed  of  the  half  dozen  chief  ministers 
The  Royal  and  about  thirty  councilors  who  helped  their  chiefs  to 
Council  supervise  the  affairs  of  the  kingdom,  —  issuing  de- 
crees, conferring  on  foreign  policy,  levying  taxes,  and  acting  on 
endless  reports  from  local  officials. 

The  Royal  Council  had  numerous  local  representatives. 
There  were  the  bailiffs  and  seneschals,  whose  actual  powers 
Local  Ad-  had  quite  disappeared,  but  whose  offices  served  to 
ministration  complicate  matters.  Then  there  were  the  governors 
of  provinces,  well-fed  gentlemen  with  fat  salaries  and  little  to 
The  do.     The  bulk  of  local  administration  fell  into  the 

intendants  hands  of  the  intendants  and  their  sub-delegates. 
Each  of  the  thirty-four  intendants  —  the  so-called  "Thirty 
Tyrants  of  France" — was  appointed  by  the  king's  ministers 
and  was  like  a  petty  despot  in  his  district  (generalite). 

The  powers  of  the  intendant  were  extensive.  He  decided 
what  share  of  the  district  taxes  each  village  and  taxpayer  should 
bear.  He  had  his  representatives  in  each  parish  of  his  district, 
and  through  them  he  super\-ised  the  police,  the  preservation  of 
order,  and  the  recruiting  of  the  army.  He  reHeved  the  poor  in 
bad  seasons.  The  erection  of  a  church,  or  the  repair  of  a  town 
hall,  needed  his  sanction.  When  the  Royal  Council  ordered 
roads  to  be  built,  it  was  the  intendant  and  his  men  who  directed 
the  work  and  called  the  peasants  out  to  do  the  labor.  With 
powers  such  as  these,  it  was  Uttle  wonder  that  the  intendant  was 
called  Monseigneur  —  "My  lord." 

The  system  of  Royal  Council,  intendants,  and  sub-intendants 
would  have  been  comparatively  simple,  had  it  not  been  compli- 
The  Par-  cated  by  the  presence  of  numerous  other  pohtical 
lament  of  bodics,  eacli  of  which  claimed  certain  customary 
^^"^  powers.     First  of    all,  there  was    the   Parlement,  or 

supreme  court,  of  Paris,  primarily  a  judicial  body  which  regis- 
tered the  royal  decrees.  If  the  Parlement  disliked  a  decree, 
it  might  refuse  to  register  it,  until  the  king  should  hold  a  "bed 
of  justice"  —  that  is,  should  formally  summon  the  Parlement 
and  in  person  command  it  to  register  his  decree. 


''LIBERTY,   EQU.\LITY,    FRATERNITY"  451 

Then  there  were  proWncial  "Estates/'  or  assemblies,  in  a  few 
of  the  pro\'inces.^     These  bodies,  survivals  of  the  middle  ages, 
did  not  make  laws  but  had  a  voice  in  the  apportion-  Provincial 
ment  of  taxes  among  the  parishes  of  the  pro\-ince,  and  Estates 
exercised  powers  of  supervision  over  road-building  and  the  col- 
lection of  taxes. 

The  government  of  the  towns  was  peculiar.  The  old  gilds, 
now  including  only  a  small  number  of  the  wealthiest  burghers, 
elected  a  To\mi  Council,  which  managed  the  prop-  Town 
erty  of  the  to\\Ti,  appointed  tax-collectors,  saw  that  CouncUs 
the  tovm.  hall  was  kept  in  repair,  and  super\-ised  the  collection  of 
customs  duties  on  goods  brought  into  the  tovm.  It  is  easy  to 
perceive  how  the  Town  Council  and  the  intendant  would  have 
overlapping  powers,  and  how  considerable  confusion  might 
arise,  especially  since  in  different  towns  the  nature  and  the 
powers  of  the  Tovm.  Council  differed  widely.  Matters  were 
compHcated  still  further  by  the  fact  that  the  mayors  of  the  towns 
were  not  elected  by  the  council,  but  appointed  by  the  crown. 

In  rural  districts  there  was  a  trace  of  the  same  conflict  betw^een 
the  system  of  intendants  and  the  surv-ivals  of  local  self-govern- 
ment. Summoned  by  the  clanging  church  bell,  aU  the  men  of 
the  \'illage  met  on  the  \Tllage  green.  And  the  simple  \'illagers, 
thus  gathered  together  as  a  town  meeting  or  communal  assembly, 
might  elect  collectors  of  the  taille,  or  might  perhaps  petition  the 
intendant  to  repair  the  parsonage  or  the  bridge. 

Possibly  the  reader  may  now  begin  to  realize  that  confusion 
was  a  prime  attribute  of  the  French  administrative  system. 
The  common  people  were  naturally  be\sildered  by  the  confusion 
overlapping  functions  of  Royal  Council,  Parlement.  in  Adminis- 
pro\'incial  estates,  governors,  bailiff's,  intendants,  sub- 
in  tendants,  mayors,  to-vsTi  councils,  and  ^•illage  assemblies.  The 
system,  or  lack  of  system,  gave  rise  to  corruption  and  complica- 

^  Such  prcnnces  were  called  pays  d'etat  and  included  Brittany,  Languedoc, 
Provence,  Roussillon,  Dauphine,  Burgundy,  Franche  Comte,  Alsace,  Lorraine, 
Artois,  Flanders,  Corsica,  etc.  The  local  assemblies  in  these  pays  d'etat  were  by 
no  means  representative  of  all  the  inhabitants.  The  remaining  pro\-inces,  in 
which  no  vestiges  o{^pro\-incial  seh-govemment  survived,  were  called  pays  d'elec- 
tion:  they  included  lie  de  France,  Orleanais,  Champagne  and  Brie,  Maine,  Anjou, 
Poitou,  Guyenne  and  Gascony.  Limousin,  Auvergne,  Lyonnais,  Bourbonnais, 
Touraine.  Xormandj',  Picardy.  etc. 


452  HISTORY   OF   MODERN    EUROPE 

tion  without  insuring  liberty.  The  most  trivial  affairs  were  reg- 
ulated by  overbearing  and  exacting  royal  officials.  Everything 
depended  upon  the  honesty  and  industry  or  upon  the  meanness 
and  caprice  of  these  officials.  Each  petty  officer  transmitted 
long  reports  to  his  superior ;  but  the  general  pubhc  was  kept  in 
the  dark  about  official  matters,  and  was  left  to  guess,  as  best  it 
could,  the  reasons  for  the  seemingly  unreasonable  acts  of  the 
government.  If  an  intendant  increased  the  taxes  on  a  village,  the 
ignorant  inhabitants  blamed  it  upon  official  "graft"  or  favor- 
itism. Or,  if  hard  times  prevailed,  or  if  a  shaky  bridge  broke 
down,  the  villagers  were  prone  in  any  case  to  find  fault  with 
the  government,  for  the  more  mysterious  and  powerful  the  gov- 
ernment was,  the  more  Hkely  was  it  to  bear  the  blame  for  all  ills. 

Confusion  in  administrative  offices  was  not  the  only  confu- 
sion in  eighteenth-century  France.  There  was  no  uniformity 
or  simplicity  in  standards  of  weight  and  measure,  in  coinage,  in 
tolls,  in  internal  customs-duties.  But  worst  of  all  were  the 
laws  and  the  courts  of  justice. 

What  was  lawful  in  one  town  was  often  illegal  in  a  place  not 
five  miles  distant.  Almost  four  hundred  sets  or  bodies  of  law 
Confusion  were  in  force  in  different  parts  of  France.  In  some 
in  Laws  districts  the  old  Roman  laws  were  still  retained ;  else- 
where laws  derived  from  early  German  tribes  were  enforceable. 
Many  laws  were  not  even  in  writing ;  and  such  as  were  written 
were  more  often  in  Latin  than  in  French.  The  result  was  that 
only  unusually  learned  men  knew  the  law,  and  common  people 
stumbled  along  in  the  dark.  The  laws,  moreover,  were  full  of 
injustice  and  cruelty.  An  offender  might  have  his  hand  or  ear 
cut  off,  or  his  tongue  torn  out ;  he  might  be  burned  with  red-hot 
irons  or  have  molten  lead  poured  into  his  flesh.  Hanging  was 
an  easy  death  compared  to  the  lingering  torture  of  having  one's 
bones  broken  on  a  wheel. 

The  courts  were  nearly  as  bad  as  the  laws.  There  were 
royal  courts,  feudal  courts,  church  courts,  courts  of  finance. 
Confusion  ^^^  military  courts ;  and  it  was  a  wise  offender  who 
in  Law  knew  before  which  court  he  might  be   tried.     Ex- 

tremely important  cases  might  be  carried  on  appeal 
to  the  highest  courts  of  the  realm  —  the  Parlements  —  of  which 
there  were  thirteen,  headed  in  honor  by  that  of  Paris. 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY.    FRATERNITY"  453 

Although  courts  were  so  plenteous,  justice  was  seldom  to  be 
found.  Persons  wrongfully  accused  of  crime  were  tortured 
until  they  confessed  deeds  they  had  never  committed.  Prevalence 
The  public  was  not  admitted  to  trials,  so  no  one  knew  °^  injustice 
on  what  grounds  the  sentence  was  passed,  and  the  judge  gave 
no  reason  for  his  verdict.  Ci\dl  lawsuits  were  appealed  from 
court  to  court  and  might  drag  on  for  years  until  the  parties 
had  spent  all  their  money.  Lawyers  were  more  anxious  to 
extract  large  fees  from  their  clients  than  to  secure  justice  for 
them. 

Confused  laws  and  conflicting  jurisdictions  were  often  made 
worse  by  the  character  of  the  judges  who  presided  over  royal 
courts.  Many  of  them  were  rich  bourgeois  who  had  "  Noblesse 
purchased  their  appointment  from  the  king.  For  a  **®  **  ^°^^  " 
large  price  it  was  possible  to  buy  a  judgeship  or  seat  in  a  Parle- 
ment,  not  only  for  a  lifetime  but  as  an  hereditary  possession. 
It  has  been  estimated  that  50,000  bourgeois  families  possessed 
such  judicial  offices :  they  formed  a  sort  of  lower  nobility,  ex- 
empted from  certain  taxes  and  very  proud  of  their  honors. 
Naturally  envious  were  his  neighbors  when  the  "councilor" 
appeared  in  his  grand  wig  and  his  enormous  robe  of  silk  and 
velvet,  attended  by  a  page  who  kept  the  robe  from  trailing  iii 
the  dust.  No  wonder  these  bourgeois  judges  were  called  "the 
nobihty  of  the  robe." 

In  some  way  or  other  the  "noble  of  the  robe"  had  to  com- 
pensate himself  for  the  price  of  his  office  and  the  cost  of  his  robe. 
One  bought  an  office  for  profit  as  well  as  for  honor.  For  to  the 
judge  were  paid  the  court  fees  and  fines ;  and  no  shrewd  judge 
would  let  a  case  pass  him  without  exacting  some  kind  of  a  fee. 
Even  more  profitable  were  the  indirect  gains.  If  Monsieur 
A  had  gained  his  case  in  court,  it  was  quite  to  be  expected  that 
in  his  joy  Monsieur  A  would  make  a  handsome  present  to  the 
judge  who  had  given  the  decision.  At  least,  that  is  the  way  the 
judge  would  have  put  it.  As  a  plain  matter  of  fact  the  judges 
were  bribed,  and  justice  w^as  too  often  bought  and  sold  hke 
judgeships. 

Corruption  and  abuses  were  not  confined  to  the  civil  govern- 
ment and  the  courts  of  law  ;  the  army,  too,  was  infected.  In  the 
ranks  were  to  be  found  hired  foreigners,  unwilling  peasants  dragged 


454  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

from  their  farms,  and  the  scum  of  the  city  slums.  Thousands  de- 
serted every  year.  Had  the  discontented  troops  been  well  com- 
Abusesin  manded,  they  might  still  have  answered  the  purpose. 
the  Army  g^j-  such  was  not  the  case.  There  were  certainly 
enough  officers  —  an  average  of  one  general  for  every  157 
privates.  But  what  officers  they  were !  Dissolute  and  dandi- 
fied generals  drawing  their  pay  and  never  visiting  their  troops, 
lieutenants  reveling  in  vice,  instead  of  drilling  and  caring  for 
their  commands.  Noble  blood,  not  ability,  was  the  qualifica- 
tion of  a  commander.  Counts,  who  had  never  seen  a  battlefield, 
were  given  mihtary  offices,  and  the  seven-year-old  Due  de  Frousac 
was  a  colonel. 

Confused  administration,  antiquated  laws,  corrupt  magistrates, 
Confusion  and  a  disorganized  army  showed  the  weakness  of  the 
in  France  French  monarchy ;  but  financial  disorders  threatened 
its  very  existence,  —  for  a  government  out  of  money  is  as  help- 
less as  a  fish  out  of  water. 

The  destructive  wars,  costly  armies,  luxurious  palaces,  and  ex- 
travagant court  of  Louis  XIV  had  left  to  the  successors  of  the 
Grand  Monarch  many  debts,  an  empty  treasury,  and  an  over- 
taxed people.  If  ever  there  was  need  of  care  and  thrift,  it  was  in 
the  French  monarchy  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

Yet  the  king's  ministers  did  not  even  trouble  themselves  to 
keep  orderly  accounts.  Bills  and  receipts  were  carelessly  laid 
away;  no  one  knew  how  much  was  owed  or  how  much  was  to 
be  expected  by  the  treasury;  and  even  the  king  himself  could 
not  have  told  how  much  he  would  run  into  debt  during  the  year. 
While  it  lasted,  money  was  spent  freely. 

The  amount  of  money  required  by  the  king  would  have  made 
taxes  very  heavy  anyway,  but  bad  methods  of  assessment  and 
Royal  collection  added  to  the  burden.     The  royal  revenue 

Revenue  ^g^g  derived  chiefly  from  three  sources :  the  royal  do- 
mains, the  direct  taxes,  and  the  indirect  taxes.  From  the  royal 
domains,  the  lands  of  which  the  king  was  landlord  as  well  as  sov- 
ereign, a  considerable  but  ever-diminishing  income  was  derived. 
Direct  The  direct  taxes  were  the  prop  of  the  treasury,  for 

Taxes  ^j^gy  could  be  increased  to  meet  the  demand,  at  least 

as  long  as  the  people  would  pay.  There  were  three  direct 
taxes  —  the  taille,  the  capitation,  and  the  vingtieme.     The  ving- 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  455 

Heme,  or  "twentieth,"  was  a  tax  on  incomes — ^5  per  cent  ^  on 
the  salary  of  the  judge,  on  the  rents  of  the  noble,  on  the  earning 
of  the  artisan,  on  the  produce  of  the  peasant.     The  The  in- 
clergy  were  entirely  exempted  from  this  tax  ;  the  more   *^°°^®  "^^ 
influential  nobles  and  bourgeois  contrived  to  have  their  incomes 
underestimated,   and   the   burden   fell   heaviest  on   the  poorer 
classes.     Capitation  was  a  general  poll  or  head  tax,   The  PoU 
varying  in  amount  according  to  whichever  of  twenty-   '^^ 
two  classes  claimed   the  individual   taxpayer.     Maid-servants, 
for  example,  paid  annually  three  livres  and  twelve  sous.^ 

The  most  important  and  hated  direct  tax  was  the  taille  or 
land  tax,  —  practically  a  tax  on  peasants  alone.  The  total 
amount  to  be  raised  was  apportionQd  among  the  The  TaiUe 
intendants  by  the  Royal  Council,  and  by  the  intend-  or  Land  Tax 
ants  among  the  \dllages  of  their  respective  districts.  At  the 
village  assembly  collectors  were  elected,  who  were  thereby 
authorized  to  demand  from  each  villager  a  share  of  the  tax, 
according  to  his  ability  to  pay.  As  a  result  of  this  method, 
each  villager  tried  to  appear  poor  so  as  to  be  taxed  lightly ; 
whole  villages  looked  run-down  in  order  to  be  held  for  only  a 
small  share ;  and  influential  pohticians  often  obtained  allevia- 
tion for  parts  of  the  country. 

The  indirect  taxes  were  not  so  heavy,  but  they  were  bitterly 
detested.     There  were  taxes  on  alcohol,  metal-ware,  cards,  paper, 
and  starch,  but  most  disliked  of  all  was  that  on  salt  (the  indirect 
gahelle).     Every  person  above  seven  years  of  age  was  Taxes 
supposed  annually  to  buy  from  the  government  salt-works  seven 
pounds  of  salt  at  about  ten  times  its  real  value.^     Only  govern- 
ment   agents    could    legally    sell    salt,     and    smugglers    were 
fined  heavily  or  sent  to  the  galleys.     These  indirect  "  Tax 
taxes  were  usually  "farmed  out,"  that  is,  in  return  Farming" 
for  a  lump  sum  the  government  would  grant  to  a  company  of 
speculators  the  right  to  collect  what  they  could.     These  specu- 
lators were  called  "farmers-general,"  —  France  could  be  called 

^  Five  per  cent  in  theory ;  in  practice  in  the  reign  of  Louis  XVI  it  was  1 1  per 
cent. 

^  A  livre  was  worth  about  z.  franc  (20  cents)  and  a  sou  was  equivalent  to  one  cent. 

^  It  should  be  understood,  of  course,  that  the  gabelle  was  higher  and  more 
burdensome  in  some  provinces  than  in  others. 


456  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

their  farm^  and  money  its  produce.  And  they  farmed  well. 
After  paying  the  government,  the  "farmers"  still  had  milhons 
of  francs  to  distribute  as  bribes  or  as  presents  to  great  personages 
or  to  retain  for  themselves.  Thus,  millions  were  lost  to  the 
treasury. 

Taxes  could  not  always  be  raised  to  cover  emergencies,  nor 
collected  so  wastefully.  The  peasants  of  France  were  crushed 
The  Burden  by  feudal  dues,  tithes,  and  royal  taxes.  The  bour- 
of  Taxation  geoisie  were  angered  by  the  income  tax,  by  the  indirect 
taxes,  by  the  tolls  and  internal  customs,  and  by  the  monopohstic 
privileges  which  the  king  sold  to  his  favorites.  How  long  the 
unprivileged  classes  would  bear  the  burden  of  taxation,  while 
the  nobles  and  clergy  were  almost  free,  no  one  could  tell ;  but 
signs  of  discontent  were  too  patent  to  be  ignored. 

Louis  XIV  (1643-17 1 5)  at  the  end  of  his  long  reign  perceived 
the  danger.  As  the  aged  monarch  lay  on  his  deathbed,  flushed 
with  fever,  he  called  his  five-year-old  great-grandson  and  heir, 
the  future  Louis  XV,  to  the  bedside  and  said :  ''My  child,  you 
will  soon  be  sovereign  of  a  great  kingdom.  Do  not  forget  your 
obHgations  to  God ;  remember  that  it  is  to  Him  that  you  owe 
all  that  you  are.  Endeavor  to  live  at  peace  with  your  neigh- 
bors ;  do  not  imitate  me  in  my  fondness  for  war,  nor  in  the  ex- 
orbitant expenditure  which  I  have  incurred.  Take  counsel  in 
all  your  actions.  Endeavor  to  relieve  Hie  people  al  the  earliest 
possible  moment,  and  thus  to  accomplish  what,  unfortunately,  I 
am  unable  to  do  myself." 

It  was  good  advice.  But  Louis  XV  was  only  a  boy,  a  play- 
thing in  the  hands  of  his  ministers.  In  an  earlier  chapter  ^  we 
Louis  XV,  have  seen  how  under  the  duke  of  Orleans,  who  was 
1715-1774  prince  regent  from  1715  to  1723,  France  entered  into 
war  with  Spain,  and  how  finance  was  upset  by  speculation ;  and 
how  under  Cardinal  Fleury,  who  was  minister  from  1726  to 
1743,  the  War  of  the  Polish  Election  (i  733-1 738)  was  fought 
and  the  War  of  the  Austrian  Succession  (i  740-1 748)  begun. 

When  in  1743  the  ninety-year-old  Cardinal  Fleury  died,  Louis 

1  Etymologically,  the  French  word  for  farm  (fcrme)  was  not  necessarily  con- 
nected with  agriculture,  but  signified  a  fixed  sum  (Jirma)  paid  for  a  certain  privi- 
lege, such  as  that  of  collecting  a  tax. 

2  See  above,  pp.  255  f. 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  457 

XV  announced  that  he  would  be  lils  own  minister.  But  he  was 
not  a  Frederick  the  Great.  At  the  council  table  poor  Louis 
"opened  his  mouth,  said  little,  and  thought  not  at  all."  State 
business  seemed  terribly  dull,  and  the  king  left  most  of  it  to  others. 

But  of  one  thing,  Louis  XV  could  not  have  enough  —  and  that 
was  pleasure.  He  much  preferred  pretty  girls  to  pompous 
ministers  of  state,  and  spent  most  of  his  time  with  the  ladies  and 
the  rest  of  the  time  either  hunting  or  gambling.  In  spite  of 
the  fact  that  he  was  married,  Louis  very  easily  fell  in  love  with 
a  charming  face ;  at  one  time  he  was  infatuated  by  the  duchess 
of  Chateauroux,  then  by  Madame  de  Pompadour,  and  later  by 
Madame  du  Barry.  Upon  his  mistresses  he  was  willing  to  la\dsh 
princely  presents,  —  he  gave  them  estates  and  titles,  had  them 
live  at  Versailles,  and  criminally  allowed  them  to  interfere  in  poli- 
tics ;  for  their  sake  he  was  willing  to  let  his  country  go  to  ruin. 

The  character  of  the  king  was  reflected  in  his  court.  It 
became  fashionable  to  neglect  one's  wife,  to  gamble  all  night, 
to  laugh  at  \'irtue,  to  be  wasteful  and  extravagant.  Versailles 
was  gay  ;  the  ladies  painted  their  cheeks  more  brightly  than  ever, 
and  the  lords  spent  their  fortunes  more  recklessly. 

But  Versailles  was  not  France.  France  was  ruined  with 
wars  and  taxes.  Louis  XIV  had  said,  "Live  at  peace  with  your 
neighbors";  but  since  his  death  four  wars  had  been  waged, 
culminating  in  the  disastrous  Seven  Years'  War  (1756-1763), 
by  which  French  commerce  had  been  destroyed  and  the  French 
colonies  had  been  lost.^  Debts  were  multiphed  and  taxes  in- 
creased. What  with  war,  extravagance,  and  poor  management, 
Louis  XV  left  F^rance  a  bankrupt  state. 

Complaints  were  loud  and  remonstrances  bitter,  and  Louis 
XV  could  not  silence  them,  try  as  he  might.  Authors  who 
criticized  the  government  were  thrown  into  prison ;  ^ 

!•      1  •  •  r-  11  Growing 

radical  writmgs   were   confiscated   or    burned ;     but  complaints 
criticism  persisted.     Enemies  of  the  government  were  against  the 

1        -1  •    1   •  -i-»         Ml  7  7      French 

imprisoned  without  trial  m  the  Bastille  by  lettres  de  Monarchy 
cachet,  which  were  orders  for  arrest  signed  in  blank  by  ^^^J^  „,, 

Louis  XV 

the  king,  who  sometimes  gave  or  sold  them  to  his 
favorites,  so  that  they,  too,  might  have  their  enemies  jailed.     Yet 

'  The  formal  annexation  of  Lorraine  in  1766  and  of  Corsica  in  1768  afforded 
some  crumbs  of  comfort  for  Louis  XV. 


458  HISTORY   OF   MODERN    EUROPE 

the  opposition  to  the  court  ever  increased.  Resistance  to  taxa- 
tion centered  in  the  Parlement  of  Paris.  It  refused  to  register 
the  king's  decrees,  and  remained  defiant  even  after  Louis  XV 
had  angrily  announced  that  he  would  not  tolerate  interference 
with  his  prerogatives.  The  quarrel  grew  so  bitter  that  all  the 
thirteen  Parlements  of  France  were  suppressed  (1771),  and  in 
their  stead  new  royal  courts  were  established. 

Opposition  was  only  temporarily  crushed ;  and  Louis  XV 
knew  that  graver  trouble  was  brewing.  He  grew  afraid  to  ride 
openly  among  the  discontented  crowds  of  Paris ;  the  peasants 
saluted  him  sullenly ;  the  treasury  was  empty ;  the  monarchy 
was  tottering.  Yet  Louis  XV  felt  neither  responsibility  nor 
care.  "It  will  surely  last  as  long  as  I,"  he  cynically  affirmed; 
"my  successor  may  take  care  of  himself." 

His  successor  was  his  grandson,  Louis  XVI  (i 774-1 792),  a 
weak-kneed  prince  of  twenty  years,  very  virtuous  and  well- 
Louis  XVI,  meaning,  but  lacking  in  intelligence  and  will-power. 
1774-1792  He  was  too  awkward  and  shy  to  preside  with  dignity 
over  the  ceremonious  court ;  he  was  too  stupid  and  lazy  to 
dominate  the  ministry.  He  liked  to  shoot  deer  from  out  the 
palace  window,  or  to  play  at  lock-making  in  his  royal  carpentry 
shop.     Government  he  left  to  his  ministers. 

At  first,  hopes  ran  high,  for  Turgot,  friend  of  Voltaire 
and  contributor  to  the  Encyclopedia,  was  minister  of  finance 
( 1 774-1 776),  and  reform  was  in  the  air.  Industry  and 
commerce  were  to  be  unshackled ;  laisser-Jaire  was  to 
be  the  order  of  the  day ;  finances  were  to  be  reformed,  and  taxes 
lowered.  The  clergy  and  nobles  were  no  longer  to  escape  taxa- 
tion ;  taxes  on  food  were  to  be  aboUshed ;  the  peasants  were 
to  be  freed  from  forced  labor  on  the  roads.  But  Turgot  only 
stirred  up  opposition.  The  nobles  and  clergy  were  not  anxious 
to  be  taxed  ;  courtiers  resented  any  reduction  of  their  pensions ; 
tax-farmers  feared  the  reforming  minister ;  owners  of  industrial 
monopolies  were  frightened ;  the  peasants  misunderstood  his 
intentions ;  and  riots  broke  out.  Everybody  seemed  to  be 
relieved  when,  in  1776,  Turgot  was  dismissed. 

Turgot  had  been  a  theorist ;  his  successor  was  a  business- 
man. Jacques  Necker  was  well  known  in  Paris  as  a  hard-headed 
Swiss  banker,  and  Madame  Necker's  receptions  were  attended 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  459 

by  the  chief  personages  of  the  bourgeois  society  of  Paris. 
During  his  live  years  in  office  (i 776-1 781)  Necker  applied  busi- 
ness methods  to  the  royal  finances.  He  borrowed  „  , 
400,000,000  francs  from  his  banker  friends,  reformed 
the  collection  of  taxes,  reduced  expenditures,  and  carefully  au- 
dited the  accounts.  In  1781  he  issued  a  report  or  '^  Account  Ren- 
dered of  the  Financial  Condition."  The  bankers  were  delighted ; 
the  secrets  of  the  royal  treasury  were  at  last  common  property ;  ^ 
and  Necker  was  praised  to  the  skies. 

While  Necker's  Parisian  friends  rejoiced,  his  enemies  at 
court  prepared  his  downfall.  Now  the  most  powerful  enemy 
of  Necker's  reforms  and  economies  was  the  queen,  Marie  An- 
Marie  Antoinette.  She  was  an  Austrian  princess,  the  toilette 
daughter  of  Maria  Theresa,  and  in  the  eyes  of  the  French  people 
she  always  remained  a  hated  foreigner  —  "the  Austrian,"  they 
called  her  —  the  living  symbol  of  the  ruinous  alliance  between 
Habsburgs  and  Bourbons  which  had  been  arranged  by  a  Madame 
de  Pompadour  and  which  had  contributed  to  the  disasters  and 
disgrace  of  the  Seven  Years'  War.^  While  grave  ministers  of 
finance  were  puzzling  their  heads  over  the  deficit,  gay  Marie 
Antoinette  was  buying  new  dresses  and  jewelry,  making  presents 
to  her  friends,  giving  private  theatricals,  attending  horse-races 
and  masked  balls.  The  light-hearted  girl-queen  had  little  seri- 
ous interest  in  politics,  but  when  her  friends  complained  of 
Necker's  miserliness,  she  at  once  demanded  his  dismissal. 

Her  demand  was  granted,  for  the  kind-hearted,  well-inten- 
tioned Louis  XVI  could  not  bear  to  deprive  his  pretty, 
irresponsible  Marie  Antoinette  and  her  charming  friends,  — 
gallant  nobles  of  France,  —  of  their  pleasures.  Their  pleasures 
were  very  costly ;  and  fresh  loans  could  be  secured  by  the  obse- 
quious new  finance-minister,  Calonne,  only  at  high  rates  of 
interest. 

From  the  standpoint  of  France,  the  greatest  folly  of  Louis 
XVI's  reign  v/as  the  ruinous  intervention  in  the  War  of  American 
Independence  (1778-1783).     The  United  States  became  free; 

^  The  Compte  Rendu,  as  it  was  called  in  France,  was  really  not  accurate ;  Necker, 
in  order  to  secure  credit  for  his  financial  administration,  made  matters  appear 
better  than  they  actually  were. 

2  See  above,  pp.  358  ff. 


460  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Great  Britain  was  humbled ;  Frenchmen  proved  that  their 
valor  was  equal  to  their  chivalry ;  but  when  the  impulsive  Mar- 
C{uis  de  Lafayette  returned  from  assisting  the  Americans  to  win 
their  liberty,  he  found  a  ruined  France.  The  treasury  was  on 
the  verge  of  collapse.  From  the  conclusion  of  the  war  in  1783 
to  the  outbreak  of  the  French  Revolution  in  1789,  every  possible 
financial  expedient  was  tried  —  in  vain. 

To  tax  the  so-called  privileged  classes  —  the  clergy  and  the 
nobles  —  might  have  helped  ;  and  successive  finance  ministers 
^jjg  so  counseled  the  king.     But  it  was  absolutely  against 

Problem  of  the  Spirit  of  the  ''old  regime."  What  was  the  good 
Taxation  ^^  being  a  clergyman  or  a  noble,  If  one  had  no  privi- 
leges and  was  obliged  to  pay  taxes  like  the  rest?  To  tax  all 
alike  would  be  in  itself  a  revolution,  and  the  tottering  divine- 
right  monarchy  sought  reform,  not  revolution. 

Yet  in  1786  the  interest-bearing  debt  had  mounted  to 
$600,000,000,  the  government  was  running  in  debt  at  least 
$25,000,000  a  year,  and  the  treasury-officials  were  ex- 
sembiy  of  periencing  the  utmost  difficulty  in  negotiating  new 
Notables,  loans.  Something  had  to  be  done.  As  a  last  resort, 
the  king  convened  (1787)  an  Assembly  of  Notables  — 
145  of  the  chief  noblfes,  bishops,  and  magistrates  —  in  the  vain 
hope  that  they  would  consent  to  the  taxation  of  the  privileged 
and  unprivileged  ahke.  The  Notables  were  not  so  self-sacri- 
ficing, however,  and  contented  themselves  with  abolishing  com- 
pulsory labor  on  the  roads,  voting  to  have  provincial  assemblies 
established,  and  demanding  the  dismissal  of  Calonne,  the  minister 
of  finance.  The  question  of  taxation,  they  said,  should  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Estates-General.  All  this  helped  the  treasury  in 
no  material  way. 

A  new  minister  of  finance,  who  succeeded  Calonne,  —  Arch- 
bishop Lomenie  de  Brienne,  —  politely  thanked  the  Notables 
and  sent  them  home.  He  made  so  many  fine  prom- 
tion  of  the  iscs  that  hope  temporarily  revived,  and  a  new  loan 
Estates-  ^j^g  raised.  But  the  Parlement  of  Paris,  which  to- 
gether with  the  other  Parlements  had  been  restored 
early  in  the  reign  of  Louis  XVI,  soon  saw  through  the  arti- 
fices of  the  suave  minister,  and  positively  refused  to  register 
further  loans  or  taxes.     Encouraged  by  popular  approval,   the 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  461 

Parlemcnt  went  on  to  draw  up  a  declaration  of  rights,  and 
to  assert  that  subsidies  could  constitutionally  be  granted 
only  by  the  nation's  representatives  —  the  ancient  Estates- 
General.  This  sounded  to  the  government  like  revolution, 
and  the  Parlements  were  again  abolished.  The  abolition  of  the 
Parlemcnts  raised  a  great  cry  of  indignation ;  excited  crowds 
assembled  in  Paris  and  other  cities  ;  and  the  soldiers  refused  to 
arrest  the  judges.  Here  was  real  revolution,  and  Louis  XVI, 
frightened  and  anxious,  yielded  to  the  popular  demand  for  the 
Estates- General. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  every  one  talked  so  glibly  about  the 
Estates-General  and  of  the  great  things  that  body  would  do, 
few  knew  just  what  the  Estates-General  was.  Most  people  had 
heard  that  once  upon  a  time  France  had  had  a  representative 
body  of  clerg}^-,  nobility,  and  commoners,  somewhat  Uke  the 
British  Parhament.  But  no  such  assembly  had  been  convoked 
for  almost  two  centuries,  and  only  scholars  and  lawyers  knew 
what  the  old  Estates-General  had  been.  Nevertheless,  it  was 
beheved  that  nothing  else  could  save  France  from  ruin ;  and  in 
August,  1788,  Louis  XVI,  after  consulting  the  learned  men, 
issued  a  summons  for  the  election  of  the  Estates-General,  to 
meet  in  May  of  the  following  year. 

The  convocation  of  the  Estates- General  was  the  death-warrant 
of  divine-right  monarchy  in  France.     It  meant  that 
absolutism  had  failed.     The  king  was  bankrupt.     No  Absolutism 
half-way  reforms  or  pitiful  economies  would  do  now.  in  France 
The  Revolution  was  at  hand. 


ADDITIONAL   READING 

The  British  Monarchy,  1760-1800.  General  accounts:  A.  L.  Cross, 
History  of  England  and  Greater  Britain  (1914),  ch.  xlv,  a  brief  resume; 
Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  \T  (iqoq),  ch.  xiii ;  A.  D.  Innes,  History 
of  England  and  the  British  Empire,  Vol.  Ill  (1914),  ch.  vii-ix,  xi ;  C.  G. 
Robertson,  England  under  the  Hanoverians  (191 1);  J.  F.  Bright,  History 
of  En  gland,  \o\.  Ill,  Constitutional  Monarchy,  i68g-i8j^;  William  Hunt, 
Political  History  of  England,  1760-1801  (1905),  Tory  in  sympathy;  and 
W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  A  History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  London 
ed.,  7  vols.  (1907),  and  A  History  of  Ireland  in  the  Eighteenth  Century, 
5  vols.  (1893),  the  most  complete  general  histories  of  the  century.     Special 


462  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

studies:  E.  and  A.  G.  Porritt,  The  Unreformed  House  of  Commons,  new 
ed.,  2  vols.  (1909),  a  careful  description  of  the  undemocratic  character  of 
the  parliamentary  system ;  J.  R.  Fisher,  The  End  of  the  Irish  Parliament 
(1911);  W.  L.  INIathieson,  The  Awakening  of  Scotland,  iy4'/-i-jgj  (1910) ; 
Correspondence  of  George  III  with  Lord  North,  ij68-iy8j,  ed.  by  W.  B. 
Donne,  2  vols.  (1867),  excellent  for  illustrating  the  king's  system  of  per- 
sonal government ;  Horace  Walpole,  Letters,  ed.  by  Mrs.  P.  Toynbee,  16 
vols.  (1903-1905),  a  valuable  contemporary  source  as  "Walpole  is  the 
acknowledged  prince  of  letter  writers  "  ;  G.  S.  Veitch,  The  Genesis  of  Parlia- 
mentary Reform  (1913),  a  clear  and  useful  account  of  the  agitation  in  the 
time  of  Pitt  and  Fox;  W.  P.  Hall,  British  Radicalism,  ijgi-iygj  (1912), 
an  admirable  and  entertaining  survey  of  the  movement  for  political  and 
social  reform  in  England ;  J.  H.  Rose,  William  Pitt  and  National  Revival 
(1911),  dealing  with  the  years  1781-1791.  There  are  biographies  of  William 
Pitt  (the  Younger)  by  Lord  Rosebery  (iSgi)  and  by  W.  D.  Green  (1901) ; 
and  The  Early  Life  of  Charles  James  Fox  by  Sir  G.  O.  Trevelyan  (1880) 
afTords  a  delightful  picture  of  the  life  of  the  time.  Also  see  books  listed 
under  English  Society  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  pp.  427  f.,  above. 
The  Benevolent  Despots.  Brief  general  accounts:  H.  E.  Bourne,  The 
Revolutionary  Period  in  Europe,  1763-1815  (1914),  ch.  ii,  iv,  v;  J.  H. 
Robinson  and  C.  A.  Beard,  The  Development  of  Modern  Europe,  Vol.  I 
(1907),  ch.  X,  xi ;  H.  M.  Stephens,  Revolutionary  Europe,  iy8g-i8i5  (1893), 
ch.  i;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  VI  (1909),  ch.  xii,  xviii-xx,  xxii, 
xvi ;  E.  F.  Henderson,  A  Short  History  of  Germany,  Vol.  II  (1902),  ch.  v, 
excellent  on  Frederick  the  Great.  With  special  reference  to  the  career  of 
Charles  III  of  Spain  :  Joseph  Addison,  Charles  III  of  Spain  (1900) ;  M.  A.  S. 
Hume,  Spain,  its  Greatness  and  Decay,  i4'jg-i'/88  (1898),  ch.  xiv,  xv ; 
Frangois  Rousseau,  Regne  de  Charles  III  d^Espagne,  ijjg-iySS,  2  vols. 
(1907),  the  best  and  most  exliaustive  work  on  the  subject ;  Gustav  Diercks, 
Geschichte  Spaniens  von  der  friihestcn  Zeiten  bis  aitf  die  Gegenwart,  2  vols. 
(1895-1896),  a  good  general  history  of  Spain  by  a  German  scholar.  On 
Gustavus  III  of  Sweden:  R.  N.  Bam,  Scandinavia,  a  Political  History  of 
Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden,  from  1513  to  igoo  (1905).  On  the  Dutch 
Netherlands  in  the  eighteenth  century :  H.  W.  Van  Loon,  The  Fall  of  the 
Dutch  Republic  (1913).  On  Joseph  II:  A.  H.  Johnson,  The  Age  of  the 
Enlightened  Despot,  1660-1  j8g  (1910),  ch.  x,  an  admirable  brief  introduc- 
tion to  the  subject;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  VIII  (1904),  ch.  xi, 
on  Joseph's  foreign  policy;  William  Coxa  (i 747-1828),  History  of  the 
House  of  Austria,  Vol.  Ill,  an  excellent  account  though  somewhat  an- 
tiquated ;  Franz  Krones,  Handbuch  der  Geschichte  Ocstcrrcichs,  Vol.  IV 
(1878),  Books  XIX,  XX,  a  standard  work;  Karl  Ritter,  Kaiser  Joseph  II 
und  seine  kirchlichen  Reformen;  G.  Holzknecht,  Ursprung  mui  Herkunft 
der  reformideen  Kaiser  Josefs  II  auf  kirchlichcni  Gcbicte  (19 14).  For 
further  details  of  the  projects  and  achievements  of  Frederick  the  Great 
and  Maria  Theresa,  see  bibliographies  accompanying  Chapter  XI,  above ; 
and  for  those  of  Catherine  II  of  Russia,  see  bibliography  of  Chapter  XII, 
above. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  463 

The  French  Monarchy,  1743  1789.  Brief  general  accounts:  Shailer 
Mathews,  The  French  Revolution  (reprint  1912),  ch.  vi-viii ;  A.  J.  Grant, 
The  French  Monarchy,  I48j-iy8g,  Vol.  II  (1900),  ch.  xix-xxi ;  G.  W. 
Kitchin,  .1  History  of  France,  Vol.  Ill  (4th  ed.,  1899),  Book  VI,  ch.  iii-vii ; 
Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  VIII  (1904),  ch.  ii-iv ;  E.  J.  Lowell,  The 
Eve  of  the  French  Revolution  (1892),  an  able  survey  ;  Sophia  H.  MacLehose, 
The  Last  Days  of  the  French  Monarchy  (1901),  a  popular  narrative.  More 
detailed  studies:  J.  B.  Perkins,  France  under  Louis  XV,  2  vols.  (1897), 
an  admirable  treatment;  Ernest  Lavisse  (editor),  Histoire  de  France,  Vol. 
VIII,  Part  II,  Rcgne  de  Louis  XV,  1715-1774  (1909),  and  Vol.  IX,  Part  I, 
Regne  de  Louis  XVI,  j774-~I78q  (1910),  the  latest  and  most  authoritative 
treatment  in  French ;  Felix  Rocquain,  The  Revolutionary  Spirit  Preceding 
the  French  Revolution,  condensed  Eng.  trans,  by  J.  D.  Hunting  (1891),  a 
suggestive  account  of  various  disorders  immediately  preceding  1789;  Leon 
Say,  Tiirgot,  a  famous  little  biography  translated  from  the  French  by  M.  B. 
Anderson  (1S88) ;  W.  W.  Stephens,  Life  aiui  Writings  of  Turgot  (1895), 
containing  extracts  from  important  decrees  of  Turgot ;  Alphonse  Jobez, 
La  France  sous  Louis  XV,  6  vols.  (1864-1873),  and,  by  the  same  author. 
La  France  sous  Louis  XVI,  3  vols.  (1877-1893),  exhaustive  works,  stiU 
useful  for  particular  details  but  in  general  now  largely  superseded  by  the 
Histoire  de  France  of  Ernest  Lavisse ;  Charles  Gomel,  Les  causes  financier es 
de  la  revolution  franqaise:  les  derniers  controleurs  generaux,  2  vols.  (1892- 
1893),  scholarly  and  especially  valuable  for  the  public  career  of  Turgot, 
Necker,  Calonne,  and  Lomenie  de  Brienne ;  Rene  Stourm,  Les  finances  de 
I'ancien  regime  et  de  la  revolution,  2  vols.  (1885);  Aime  Cherest,  La  chute 
de  I'ancien  regime,  ijSj-ijSg,  3  vols.  (1884-1886),  a  very  detailed  study 
of  the  three  critical  years  immediately  preceding  the  Revolution;  F.  C. 
von  Mercy-x\rgenteau,  Correspondance  secrete  avec  Vimperatrice  Marie- 
Therese,  avec  les  lettres  de  Marie-Therese  et  de  Marie- Antoinette,  3  vols. 
(1875) ;  and  Correspondance  secrete  avec  I'empereur  Joseph  II  et  le  prince 
de  Kaunitz,  2  vols.  (1889-1891),  editions  of  original  letters  and  other  in- 
formation which  Mercy-Argent eau  transmitted  to  Vienna  from  1766  to 
1 790,  very  valuable  for  the  contemporary  pictures  of  court-life  at  Versailles 
(selections  have  been  translated  and  published  in  English) .  Also  see  books 
listed  under  French  Society  on  the  Eve  of  the  Revolution,  p.  427, 
above. 


CHAPTER   XV 

THE    FRENCH    REVOLUTION 
INTRODUCTORY 

The  governments  and  other  political  institutions  which 
flourished  in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  owed  their 
origins  to  much  earher  times.  They  had  undergone  only  such 
alterations  as  were  absolutely  necessary  to  adapt  them  to  various 
places  and  changing  circumstances.  Likewise,  the  same  social 
classes  existed  as  had  always  characterized  western  Europe ; 
and  these  classes  —  the  court,  the  nobles,  the  clergy,  the  bour- 
geoisie, the  artisans,  the  peasants  —  continued  to  bear  relations 
to  each  other  which  a  hoary  antiquity  had  sanctioned.  Every 
individual  was  born  into  his  class,  or,  as  the  popular  phrase 
went,  to  "a  station  to  which  God  had  called  him,"  and  to  ques- 
tion the  fundamental  divine  nature  of  class  distinctions  seemed 
silly  if  not  downright  blasphemous. 

Such  ideas  were  practical  so  long  as  society  was  comparatively 
static  and  fixed,  but  they  were  endangered  as  soon  as  the  human 
world  was  conceived  of  as  dynamic  and  progressive. 
S'sodetr  ^^^  development  of  trade  and  industry,  as  has  been 
in  Eight-  emphasized,  rapidly  increased  the  numbers,  wealth, 
Century  ^^^  influence  of  the  bourgeoisie,  or  middle  class,  and 
quite  naturally  threw  the  social  machine  out  of  gear. 
The  merchants,  the  lawyers,  the  doctors,  the  professors,  the 
literary  men,  began  to  envy  the  nobles  and  clergy,  and  in  turn 
were  envied  by  the  poor  townsfolk  and  by  the  downtrodden 
peasants.  With  the  progress  of  learning  and  study,  thoughtful 
persons  of  all  classes  began  to  doubt  whether  the  old  order  of 
politics  and  society  was  best  suited  to  the  new  conditions  and 
new  relations.  The  "old  regime"  was  for  old  needs;  did  it 
satisfy  new  requirements? 

464 


''LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  465 

To  this  question  the  philosophers  of  the  eighteenth  century 
responded  unequivocally  in  the  negative.     Scientists,  of  whom 
the  period  was  full,  had  done  much  to  exalt  the  notions  influence 
that  the  universe  is  run  in  accordance  with  immutable  of  Phi- 
laws  of  nature  and  that  man  must  forever  utiUze  his    °^°^  ^ 
reasoning  faculties.     It  was  not  long  before  the  philosophers 
were  applying  the  scientists'  notions  to  social  conditions.     "Is 
this  reasonable?"  they  asked,  or,  "Is  that  rational?"     Montes- 
quieu   insisted    that    divine-right    monarchy    is    unreasonable. 
Voltaire  poked  fun  at  the   Church  and  the  clergy  for  being 
irrational.     Rousseau  claimed  that  class  inequalities  have  no 
basis  in  reason.     Beccaria  taught  that  arbitrary  or  cruel  inter- 
ference with  personal  hbcrty  is  not  in  accordance  with  dictates 
of  nature  or  reason. 

Philosophy  did  not  directly  effect  a  change ;  it  was  merely 
an  expression  of  a  growing  behef  in  the  advisabihty  of  change. 
It  reflected  a  conviction,  deep  in  many  minds,  that  the  old 
pohtical  institutions  and  social  distinctions  had  served  their 
purpose  and  should  now  be  radically  adapted  to  the  new  order. 
Every  country  in  greater  or  less  degree  heard  the  radical  philos- 
ophy, but  it  was  in  France  that  it  was  first  heeded. 

•In  France,  between  the  years  1789  and  1799,  occurred  a  series 
of  events,  by  v/hich  the  doctrine  of  democracy  supplanted  that 
of  di\ine-right  monarchy,  and  the  theory  of  class  The  Revo- 
distinctions  gave  way  to  that  of  social  equaHty.  ^"*^°° 
These  events,  taken  together,  constitute  what  we  term  the 
French  Revolution,  and,  inasmuch  as  they  have  profoundly 
affected  all  pohtical  thought  and  social  action  throughout  the 
nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries,  they  are  styled,  by  way  of 
eminence,  the  Revolution. 

Why  the  Revolution  started  in  France  may  be  suggested  by 
reference  to  certain  points  which  have  already  been  mentioned 
in  the  history  of  that  country.     France  was  the  coun-  ^j^g  -Revo- 
try  which,  above  any  other,  had  perfected  the  theory  lution 
and  practice  of  divine-right  monarchy.     In  France 
had  developed  the  sharpest  contrasts  between  the  various  social 
classes.     It  was  hkewise  in  France  that  the  relatively  high  level 
of  education  and  enlightenment  had  given  great  vogue  to  a 
peculiarly  destructive  criticism  of  political  and  social  conditions. 


466  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Louis  XIV  had  erected  his  absolutism  and  had  won  for  it  foreign 
glory  and  prestige  only  by  placing  the  severest  burdens  upon  the 
French  people.  The  exploitation  of  the  state  by  the  selfish, 
immoral  Louis  XV  had  served  not  to  lighten  those  burdens  but 
rather  to  set  forth  in  boldest  relief  the  inherent  weaknesses  of 
the  "old  regime."  And  Louis  XVI,  despite  all  manner  of  pious 
wishes  and  good  intentions,  had  been  unable  to  square  conditions 
as  they  were  with  the  operation  of  antique  institutions.  One 
royal  minister  after  another  discovered  to  his  chagrin  that 
mere  "reform"  was  worse  than  useless,  A  "revolution"  would 
be  required  to  sweep  away  the  mass  of  abuses  that  in  the  course 
I  of  centuries  had  adhered  to  the  body  politic. 

At  the  outset,  any  idea  of  likening  the  French  Revolution  to 
the  EngHsh  Revolution  of  the  preceding  century  must  be  dis- 
missed. Of  course  the  EngUsh  had  put  one  king  to 
between^^^  death  and  had  expelled  another,  and  had  clearly 
the  French  limited  the  powers  of  the  crown;  they  had  "estab- 
Revoiutlons  lished  parliamentary  government."  But  the  EngKsh 
Revolution  did  not  set  up  genuine  representative 
government,  much  less  did  it  recognize  the  theory  of  democracy. 
Voting  remained  a  special  privilege,  conferred  on  certain  per- 
sons, not  a  natural  right  to  be  freely  exercised  by  all.  Nor' 
was  the  Enghsh  Revolution  accompanied  by  a  great  social  up- " 
heaval :  it  was  in  the  first  instance  political,  in  the  second  in- 
stance religious  and  ecclesiastical ;  it  was  never  distinctly  social. 
To  all  intents  and  purposes,  the  same  social  classes  existed  in 
the  England  of  the  eighteenth  century  as  in  the  England  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  merchants, 
in  much  the  same  relation  to  one  another. 

How  radical  and  far-reaching  was  the  French  Revolution  in 
contrast  to  that  of  England  will  become  apparent  as  we 
review  the  course  of  events  in  France  during  the  decade  1789- 
1799.  A  brief  summary  at  the  close  of  this  chapter  will  aim 
^,    ^      ,     to  explain  the  significance  of  the  Revolution.     Mean- 

The  French         ,  •,  i     n     f  •  •  r 

Revolution     while,  wc  shall  devote  our  attention  to  a  narrative  of 
in  Two  ^Yie  main  events. 

Periods 

The  story  falls  naturally  into  two  parts :  First, 
1 789-1 791,  the  comparatively  peaceful  transformation  of  the 
absolute,  divine-right  monarchy  into  a  limited  monarchy,  ac- 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  467 

companied  by  a  definition  of  the  rights  of  the  individual  and  a 
profound  change  in  the  social  order;  second,  1792-1799,  the 
transformation  of  the  limited  monarchy  into  a  republic,  at- 
tended by  the  first  genuine  trial  of  democracy,  and  attended 
likewise  by  foreign  war  and  internal  tumult.  The  story,  in 
either  of  its  parts,  is  not  an  easy  one,  for  the  reason  that  im- 
portant r61es  are  played  simultaneously  by  five  distinct  groups 
of  interested  persons. 

In  the  first  place,  the  people  who  benefit  by  the  political 
and  social  arrangements  of  the  "old  regime"  will  oppose  its 
destruction.    Among  these  friends  of  the  "  old  regime  " 
may  be  included  the  royal  court,  headed  by  the  queen,  court  and 
Marie  Antoinette,  and   by  the  king's  brothers,  the  J^®  ^"^" 
count  of  Provence  and  the  count  of  Artois,  and  hke- 
wise  the  bulk  of  the  higher  clergy  and  the  nobles  —  the  privi- 
leged classes,  generally.     These  persons  cannot  be  expected  to 
surrender  their  privileges  without  a  struggle,  especially  since 
they  have  been  long  taught  that  such  privileges  are  of  divine 
sanction.     Only  dire  necessity  compels  them  to  acquiesce  in  the 
convocation  of  the  Estates-General  and  only  the  mildest  meas- 
ures of  reform  can  be  palatable  to  them.     They  hate  and  dread 
revolution  or  the  thought  of  revolution.     Yet  at  their  expense 
the  Revolution  wall  be  achieved. 

In   the  second  place,   the  bourgeoisie,   who  have  the  most 
to  lose  if  the  "old  regime"  is  continued  and  the  most  to  gain  if 
reforms  are  obtained,  will  constitute  the  majority  in  Rsie  of  the 
all  the  legislative  bodies  which  will  assemble  in  France  Bourgeoisie  , 
between  1789  and  1799.     Their  legislative  decrees  will  in  large, 
measure  reflect  their  class  interests,  and  on  one  hand  will  terrify ' 
the  court  party  and  on  the  other  will  not  fully  satisfy  the  lower 
classes.     The  real  achievements  of  the  Revolution,   however, 
will  be  those  of  the  bourgeois  assembhes. 

In  the  third  place,  the  artisans  and  poverty-stricken  populace 
of  the  cities,  notably  of  Paris,  will  through  bitter  years  lack  for 
bread.     They  will  expect  great  things  from  the  as-  ^gjg  ^f  ^he 
semblies  and  will  revile  the  efforts  of  the  court  to  Urban  Pro- 
impede   the   Revolution.     They  will   shed   blood   at 
first  to  defend  the  freedom  of  the  assembhes  from  the  court, 
subsequently  to  bring  the  assemblies  under  their  own  domina- 


468  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

tion.  Without  their  cooperation  the  Revolution  will  not  be 
achieved. 

In  the  fourth  place,  the  dull,  heavy  peasants,  in  whom  no  one 
has  hitherto  suspected  brains  or  passions,  long  dumb  under  op- 
Role  of  the  pression,  will  now  find  speech  and  opinions  and  an  un- 
Peasantry  wonted  strength.  They  will  rise  against  their  noble 
oppressors  and  burn  castles  and  perhaps  do  murder.  They 
will  force  the  astonished  bourgeoisie  and  upper  classes  to  take 
notice  of  them  and  indirectly  they  will  impress  a  significant 
social  character  upon  the  achievements  of  the  Revolution. 

Finally,  the  foreign  monarchs  must  be  watched,  for  they  will 
be  intensely  interested  in  the  story  as  it  unfolds.  If  the  French 
Role  of  the  pcople  be  permitted  with  impunity  to  destroy  the 
Foreign  very  basis  of  divine-right  monarchy  and  to  overturn 
owers  ^j^g  whole  social  fabric  of  the  "old  regime,"  how  long, 

pray,  will  it  be  before  Prussians,  or  Austrians,  or  Russians 
shall  be  doing  Hkewise?  With  some  thought  for  Louis  XVI 
and  a  good  deal  of  thought  for  themselves,  the  monarchs  will 
call  each  other  "brother"  and  will  by  and  by  send  combined 
armies  against  the  revolutionaries  in  France.  At  that  very 
time  the  success  of  the  Revolution  will  be  achieved,  for  all 
classes,  save  only  the  handful  of  the  privileged,  will  unite  in 
^  the  cause  of  France,  which  incidentally  becomes  the  cause  of 
humanity.  Bourgeoisie,  townsfolk,  peasants,  will  go  to  the 
front  and  revolutionary  France  will  then  be  found  in  her  armies. 
Thereby  not  only  will  the  Revolution  be  saved  in  France,  but 
in  the  end  it  will  be  communicated  to  the  uttermost  parts  of 
Europe. 

THE  END   OF  ABSOLUTISM  IN  FRANCE,    1789 

When  the  story  opens,  France  is  still  the  absolute,  divine- 
right  monarchy  which  Louis  XIV  had  perfected  and  Louis  XV 

had  exploited.  The  social  classes  are  still  in  the  time- 
France  on  '^  .  .  ,  . 

the  Eve  honored  position  which  has  been  described  in  Chapter 
l^  *^t   •        XIII.     But  all  is  not  well  with  the  "old  regime."     In 

Revolution  ,.       .  ,  i.  •      i      i 

the  country  districts  the  taxes  are  distressingly  bur- 
densome. In  the  cities  there  is  scarcity  of  food  side  by  side 
with  starvation  wages.     Among  the  bourgeoisie  are  envy  of  the 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  469 

upper  classes,  an  appreciation  of  the  critical  philosophy  of  the 
day,  and  a  sincere  admiration  of  what  seem  to  be  happier  polit- 
ical and  social  conditions  across  the  Channel  in  Great  Britain. 
The  public  debt  of  France  is  enormous,  and  a  large  part  of  the  I 
national  income  must,  therefore,  be  applied  to  the  payment 
of  interest :  even  the  courtiers  of  Louis  XVI  find  their  pensions 
and  favors  and  sinecures  somewhat  reduced.  When  the  privi- 
leged classes  begin  to  feel  the  pinch  of  hard  times,  it  is  certain 
that  the  finances  are  in  sore  straits. 

In  fact,  all  the  great  general  causes  of  the  French  Revolution, 
which  may  be  inferred  from  the  two  preceding  chapters,  may 
be  narrowed  down  to  the  financial  embarrassment  of  Financial 
the  government  of  Louis  XVI.     The  king  and  his  Embarrass- 
ministers    had    already    had   recourse    to    every    ex-  ^^'^ 
pedient  consistent  with  the  maintenance  of  the  "old  regime" 
save  one,  and  that  one  —  the  convocation  of  the  Estates-Gen- 
eral —  was  now  to  be  tried.     It  might  be  that  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  three  chief  classes  of  the  realm  would  be  able  to 
offer  suggestions  to  the  court,  whereby  the  finances  could  be 
improved  and  at  the  same  time  the  divine-right  monarchy  and 
the  di\inely  ordained  social  distinctions  would  be  unimpaired. 

With  this  idea  of  simple  reform  in  mind,  Louis  XVI  in  1788 
summoned  the  Estates-General  to  meet  at  Versailles  the  follow- 
ing May.     The  Estates-General  were  certainly  not  a 
revolutionary    body.     Though    for    a    hundred    and  tion  of  the 
seventy-five  years  the  French  monarchs  had  been  able  ^states- 

1-11  1  -1  Ml       1      •   •      General 

to  do  Without  them,  they  were  m  theory  still  a  legiti- 
mate part  of  the  old-time  government.  Summoned  by  King 
Philip  the  Fair  in  1302,  they  had  been  thenceforth  convoked 
at  irregular  intervals  until  16 14.  Their  organization  had  been 
in  three  separate  bodies,  representing  by  election  the  three 
estates  of  the  realm  —  clergy,  nobility,  and  commoners  (Third 
Estate).  Each  estate  voted  as  a  unit,  and  two  out  of  the  three 
estates  were  sufficient  to  carry  a  measure.  It  usually  happened 
that  the  clergy  and  nobility  joined  forces  to  outvote  the  com- 
moners. The  powers  of  the  Estates- General  had  always  been 
advisory  rather  than  legislative,  and  the  kings  had  frequently 
ignored  or  violated  the  enac.tments  of  the  assembly.  In  its 
powers  as  well  as  in  its  organization,  the  Estates- General  dif- 


470  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

fered  essentially  from  the  Parliament  of  England.  By  the 
Estates- General  the  ultimate  supremacy  of  the  royal  authority 
had  never  been  seriously  questioned. 

The  elections  to  the  Estates- General  were  held  in  accordance 

with  ancient  usage  throughout  France  in  the  winter  of  1788- 

1789.     Also,  in  accordance  with  custom,  the  electors 

.     of  the  were  invited  by  the  king  to  prepare  reports  on  the 

j    Estates-        condition  of  the  locality  with  which  they  were  f  amihar 

and  to  indicate  what  abuses,  if  any,  existed,  and  what 

remedies,  in  their  opinion,  were  advisable. 

By  the  time  the  elections  were  complete,  it  was  apparent  that 

1     the  majority  of  the  French  people  desired  and  expected  a  greater 

measure    of    reform    than    their    sovereign    had    an- 

\     The  Cahiers      .    .  i        rr^,  it  r        •  .i     ^ 

ticipated.     ihe  reports  and  lists  of  grievances  that 
had  been  drafted  in  every  part  of  the  country  were  astounding. 
To  be  sure,  these  documents,  called  cahiers,  were  not  revolu- 
l  tionary  in  wording :   with  wonderful  uniformity  they  expressed 
[  loyalty  to  the  monarchy  and  fidelity  to  the  king :  in  not  a  single 
one  out  of  the  thousand  cahiers  was  there  a  threat  of  violent 
change.     But  in  spirit  the  cahiers  were  eloquent.     All  of  them 
reflected   the  idea  which  philosophy  had  made  popular  that 
reason  demanded  fundamental,  thoroughgoing  reforms  in  gov- 
ernment and  society.     Those  of  the  Third  Estate  were  par- 
!  ticularly  insistent  upon  the  social  inequalities  and  abuses  long 
^  associated  with  the  "old  regime."     It  was  clear  that  if  the 
elected   representatives   of   the  Third   Estate   carried   out   the 
instructions    of    their    constituents,    the    voting    of    additional 
taxes  to  the  government  would  be  delayed  until  a  thorough 
investigation  had  been  made  and  many  grievances  had   been 
redressed. 

On  the  whole,  it  was  probable  that  the  elected  representatives 
of  the  Third  Estate  would  heed  the  cahiers.     They  were  edu- 
[     The  Third      cated   and  brainy  men.     Two-thirds   of   them  were 
I     Estate  lawyers  or  judges ;    many,  also,  were  scholars ;    only 

ten  could  possibly  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the  lower 
classes.  A  goodly  number  admired  the  governmental  system 
of  Great  Britain,  in  which  the  royal  power  had  been  reduced ; 
the  class  interests  of  all  of  them  were  directly  opposed  to  the 
prevailing  policies  of  the  French  monarchy.     The  Third  Estate 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  471 

was  too  intelligent  to  follow  blindly  or  unhesitatingly  the  dic- 
tates of  the  court. 

In  the  earliest  history  of  the  Estates-General,  the  Third  Estate 
had  been  of  comparatively  slight  importance  either  in  society 
or  in  politics,  and  Philip  the  Fair  had  proclaimed  that  the  duty 
of  its  members  was  ''to  hear,  receive,  approve,  and  perform 
what  should  be  commanded  of  them  by  the  king."  But  be- 
tween the  fourteenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  the  relative  social 
importance  of  the  bourgeoisie  had  enormously  increased.  The 
class  was  more  numerous,  wealtliier,  more  enlightened,  and 
more  experienced  in  the  conduct  of  business.  It  became  clearer 
with  the  lapse  of  time  that  it,  more  than  nobility  or  clergy, 
deserved  the  right  of  representing  the  bulk  of  the  nation.  This 
right  Louis  X\T  had  seemed  in  part  to  recognize  by  pro\dding 
that  the  number  of  elected  representatives  of  the  Third  Estate 
should  equal  the  combined  numbers  of  those  of  the  First  and 
Second  Estates.  The  commoners  naturally  drew  the  deduction 
from  the  royal  concession  that  they  were  to  exercise  paramount 
poHtical  influence  in  the  Estates-General  of  1789. 

The  Third  Estate,  as  elected  in  the  winter  of  1 788-1 789, 
was  fortunate  in  possessing  two  very  capable  leaders,  Mirabeau! 
and  Sieyes,  both  of  whom  belonged  by  ofi&ce  or  birth  to  the 
upper  classes,  but  who  had  gladly  accepted  election  as  deputies 
of  the  unpri\'ileged  classes.  With  two  such  leaders,  it  was  ex- 
tremely doubtful  whether  the  Third  Estate  would  tamely  sub- 
mit to  playing  an  inferior  role  in  future. 

Mirabeau  (i  749-1 791)  was  the  son  of  a  blui?  but  good-hearted 
old  marquis  who  was  not  very  successful  in  bringing  up  his 
family.     Young  Mirabeau  had  been  so  immoral  and  ,,.   ^ 

.  .  .  Mirabeau 

unruly  that  his  father  had  repeatedly  obtamed  lettres 
de  cachet  from  the  king  in  order  that  prison  bars  might  keep 
him  out  of  mischief.  Released  many  times  only  to  fall  into 
new  excesses,  Mirabeau  found  at  last  in  the  French  Revolution 
an  opportunity  for  expressing  his  sincere  belief  in  constitutional 
government  and  an  outlet  for  his  almost  superhuman  energy. 
From  the  convocation  of  the  Estates-General  to  his  death  in 
1 791,  he  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  men  in  France.  His 
gigantic  physique,  half -broken  by  disease  and  imprisonment, 
his  shaggy  eyebrows,  his  heavy  head,  gave  him  an  impressive, 


472  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

though  sinister,  appearance.     And  for  quickness  in  perceiving 

at  once  a  problem  and  its  solution,   as  well  as   for  gifts  of 

reverberating  oratory,  he  was  unsurpassed. 

I       Of  less  force  but  greater  tact  was  the  priest,  Sieyes  (1748- 

\  1836),  whose  lack  of  devotion  to  Christianity  and  the  clerical 

calling  was  matched   by   a  zealous   regard   for   the 

skeptical  and  critical  philosophy  of  the  day  and  for 

the  practical  arts  of  poHtics  and  diplomacy.     It  was  a  pamphlet 

of  Sieyes  that,  on  the  eve  of  the  assembling  of  the  Estates-Gen- 

,  eral,  furiiished  the  Third  Estate  with  its  platform  and  program. 

j  "What  is  the  Third  Estate?"  asks  Sieyes.     "It  is  everything," 

;  he  rephes.     "What  has  it  been  hitherto  in  the  pohtical  order? 

Nothing  !     What  does  it  desire?     To  be  something  !" 

The  position  of  the  Third  Estate  was  still  officially  undefined 
when  the  Estates-General  assembled  at  Versailles  in  May,  1789. 
The  king  received  his  advisers  with  pompous  cere- 
^t^g"^  mony  and  a  colorless  speech,  but  it  was  soon  obvious 
Estates-  that  he  and  the  court  intended  that  their  business 
(Mar^78o)  should  be  purely  financial  and  that  their  organization 
I  should  be  in  accordance  with   ancient  usage ;    the 

'  three  estates  would  thus  vote  "by  order,"  that  is,  as  three 
distinct  bodies,  so  that  the  doubled  membership  of  the  Third 
Estate  would  have  but  one  vote  to  the  privileged 
Constitu-  orders'  two.  With  this  view  the  great  majority  of 
Question  the  nobles  and  a  large  part  of  the  clergy,  especially 
Involved  |-]^g  higher  clergy,  were  in  full  sympathy.  On  their 
ganization  side  the  commoners  began  to  argue  that  the  Estates- 
of  the  General  should  organize  itself  as  a  single  body,  in 

General        which  each  member  should  have  one  vote,  such  vot- 
ing "by  head"  marking  the  establishment  of  true 
representation  in  France,  and  that  the  assembly  should  forth- 
with concern  itself  with  a  general   reformation  of   the   entire 
I  government.     With   the   commoners'   argument   a  few  of    the 
I  liberal  nobles,  headed  by  Lafayette,  and  a  considerable  group 
of  the  clergy,  particularly  the  curates,  agreed  ;  and  it  was  backed 
up  by  the  undoubted  sentiment  of  the  nation.     Bad  harvests 
I    in  1788  had  been  followed  by  an  unusually  severe  winter.     The 
peasantry  was  in  an  extremely  wretched  plight,  and  the  cities, 
notably  Paris,  suffered  from  a  shortage  of  food.     The  increase 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  473 

of  popular  distress,   like  a  black  cloud  before  a  storm,  gave 
menacing  sup])ort  to  the  demands  of  the  commoners. 

Over  the  constitutional  question,  fraught  as  it  was  with  the 
most  significant  consequences  to  politics  and  society,  the  parties 
wrangled  for  a  month.     The  king,  unwilling  to  offend  _^   ^. 

1  Ml         111-1         T^  1  '    •  ^"®  King 

any   one,    shilly-shallied.     iJut   the   uncomjiromismg  Defied  by 
attitude  of  the  privileged  orders  and  the  indecision  of  ^®  '^^'^ 
the  leaders  of  the  court  at  length  forced  the  issue. 
On  17  June,  1789,  the  Third  Estate  solemnly  proclaimed  itself 
a  National  Assembly.     Three  days  later,  when  the  deputies  of 
the  Tliird  Estate  came  to  the  hall  which  had  been  set  apart  in 
the  palace  of  Versailles  for  their  use,  they  found  its  doors  shut 
and  guarded  by  troops  and  a  notice  to  the  effect  that  it  was 
undergoing  repairs.     Apparently  the  king  was  at  last  preparing 
to   intervene    in    the    contest   himself.     Then    the    commoners 
precipitated    a    veritable    revolution.     Led    by    Mirabeau    and 
Sieyes,  they  proceeded  to  a  great  public  building  in  the  vicinity, 
which  was  variously  used  as  a  riding-hall  or  a  tennis  court. 
There,  amidst  intense  excitement,  with  upstr etched  ^j^g  «  Qath 
hands,  they  took  an  oath  as  members  of  the  "Na-  of  the 
tional  Assembly"  that  they  would  not  separate  until  cou^^' 
they  had  drawn  up  a  constitution  for  France.     The  20  June, 
"Oath  of  the  Tennis  Court"  was  the  true  beginning       ^ 
of   the   French   Revolution.     Without  royal   sanction,   in   fact 
against  the  express  commands  of  the  king,  the  ancient  feudal 
Estates-General  had  been  transformed,  by  simple  proclamation 
of    the    nation's    representatives,    into    a    National    Assembly, 
charged  with  the  duty  of  establishing  constitutional    govern- 
ment in  France.     The  "Oath  of  the  Tennis  Court"  was    the 
declaration  of  the  end  of  absolute  divine-right  monarchy  and 
of  the  beginning  of  a  Hmited  monarchy  based  on  the  popular 
will. 

What  would  the  king  do  under  these  circumstances?  He 
might  overwhelm  the  rebellious  commoners  by  force  of  arms. 
But  that  would  not  solve  his  financial  problems,  nor  could  he 
expect  the  French  nation  to  endure  it.  It  would  Hkely  lead 
to  a  ruinous  civil  war.  The  only  recourse  left  open  to  him 
was  a  game  of  bluff.  He  ignored  the  "Oath  of  the  Tennis 
Court,"  and  with  majestic  mien  commanded  the  estates  to  sit 


474  HISTORY   OF    MODERN   EUROPE 

separately  and  vote  "by  order."  But  the  commoners  were 
not  to  be  bluffed.  Now  joined  by  a  large  number  of  clergy 
and  a  few  nobles,  they  openly  defied  the  royal  authority.  In 
the  ringing  words  of  Mirabeau,  they  expressed  their  rebellion : 
"We  are  here  by  the  will  of  the  people  and  we  will  not  leave 
our  places  except  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet."  The  weak- 
kneed,  well-intentioned  Louis  XVI  promptly  acquiesced. 
Exactly  one  week  after  the  scene  in  the  tennis  court,  he  reversed 
his  earlier  decrees  and  directed  the  estates  to  sit  together  and 
vote  "by  head." 

By  I  July,  1789,  the  first  stage  in  the  Revolution  was  com- 
pleted. The  nobles  and  clergy  were  meeting  with  the  com- 
moners. The  Estates-General  had  become  the  Na- 
tioii"of*the^  tional  Constituent  Assembly.  As  yet,  however,  two 
Estates-  important  questions  remained  unanswered.  In  the 
into  the  ^^^^  place,  how  would  the  Assembly  be  assured  of 
National  freedom  from  the  intrigues  and  armed  force  of  the 
Assembly"*  court  ?  In  the  second  place,  what  direction  would 
the  reforms  of  the  Assembly  take? 

The  answer  to  the  first  question  was  speedily  evoked  by  the 
court  itself.  As  early  as  i  July,  a  gradual  movement  of  royal 
troops  from  the  garrisons  along  the  eastern  frontier 
Prepares  toward  Paris  and  Versailles  made  it  apparent  that 
to  Use  ^]^g    king    contemplated    awing     the    National    As- 

against  sembly    into    a    more    deferential    mood.     The    As- 

the  As-  sembly,  in  dignified  tone,  requested  the  removal  of 

the  troops.  The  king  responded  by  a  peremptory 
refusal  and  by  the  dismissal  of  Necker,^  the  popular  finance- 
minister.  Then  it  was  that  Paris  came  to  the  rescue  of  the 
Assembly, 

The  Parisian  populace,  goaded  by  real  want,  felt  instinc- 
tively that  its  own  cause  and  that  of  the  National  Assembly 
Popular  were  identical.  Fired  by  an  eloquent  harangue  of  a 
uprising  brilliant  journalist,  Camille  Desmoulins  (i  760-1 794) 
tn  Behalf  ^Y  name,  they  rushed  to  arms.  For  three  days  there 
of  the  was  wild  disorder  in  the  city.     Shops  were  looted, 

ssem  y  j-Qya^j  officers  were  expelled,  business  was  at  a  stand- 
still.    On   the  third  day — 14   July,    1789  —  the   mob   surged 

^  Necker  had  been  restored  to  his  office  as  director-general  of  the  finances  in  1 788. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  475 

out  to  the  east  end  of  Paris,  where  stood  the  frowning  royal 
fortress  and  prison  of  the  Bastille.     Although  since  the  acces- 
r    sion  of  Louis  XVI  the  Bastille  no  longer  harbored 
i    political  offenders,  nevertheless  it  was  still  regarded  gtruction 
as  a  symbol  of  Bourbon  despotism,   a  grim  threat  of  the 
against  the  liberties  of  Paris.     The  people  would  now   j^fy  ^^^g^"* 
take  it  and  would  appropriate  its  arms  and  ammuni- 
tion for  use  in  defense  of  the  National  Assembly.     The  garrison 
of  the  Bastille  was  small  and  disheartened,  provisions  were  short, 
and  the  royal  governor  was  irresolute.     Within  a  few  hours 
the  mob  was  in  possession  of  the  Bastille,  and  the  defenders, 
most  of  whom  were  Swiss  mercenaries,  had  been  slaughtered. 

The  fall  of  the  Bastille  was  the  first  serious  act  of  violence 
in  the  course  of  the  Revolution.     It  was  an  unmistakable  sign 
that  the  people  were  with  the  Assembly  rather  than  Revolution 
with  the  king.     It  put  force  behind  the  Assembly's  in  the 

I    decrees.     Not  only  that,  but  it  rendered  Paris  prac-  of°Paris°^" 

1    tically  independent  of  royal  control,  for,  during  the  the  Com- 
period  of  disorder,  prominent  citizens  had  taken  it 
upon  themselves  to  organize  their  own  government  and  their 
own  army.     The  new  local  government — -the  "commune,"  as 

I  it  was  called  —  was  made  up  of  those  elected  representatives 
of  the  various  sections  or  wards  of  Paris  who  had  chosen  the 
city's  delegates  to  the  Estates-General.  It  was  itself  a  revolu- 
tion in  city  government :  it  substituted  popularly  elected 
officials  in  place  of  royal  agents  and  representatives  of  the 
outworn  gilds.  And  the  authority  of  the  commune  was  sus- 
tained  by   a   popularly   enrolled   militia,    styled   the   National 

\  Guard,  which  soon  numbered  48,000  champions  of  the  new 
cause. 

The  fall  of  the  Bastille  was  such  a  clear  sign  that  even  Louis  XVI 
did  not  fail  to  perceive  its  meaning.     He  instantly  withdrew 
the   royal   troops   and   recalled   Necker.     He   recog-      ^ 
nized  the  new  government  of  Paris  and  confirmed  the  Acqm- 
appointment  of   the  liberal  Lafayette   to   command  f^g^^^°* 

I    the   National    Guard.     He  visited   Paris   in   person, 
praised  what  he  could  not  prevent,   and  put  on  a  red-white- 

\   and-blue  cockade  —  combining  the  red  and  blue  of  the  capital 

'   city  with  the  white  of  the  Bourbons  —  the  new  national  tricolor 


476  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

of  France.  Frenchmen  still  celebrate  the  fourteenth  of  July, 
the  anniversary  of  the  fall  of  the  Bastille,  as  the  independence 
day  of  the  French  nation. 
I  For  a  while  it  seemed  as  though  reform  might  now  go  forward 
I  without  further  interruption.  The  freedom  of  the  Assembly 
Renewed  ^^^  been  affirmed  and  upheld.  Paris  had  settled 
Intrigues  down  oncc  more  into  comparative  repose.  The  king 
Famjiy  °^^  ^^^  apparently  learned  his  lesson.  But  the  victory 
against  the  of  the  reformers  had  been  gained  too  easily, 
ssem  y  LquIs  XVI  might  take  solemn  oaths  and  wear  strange 
cockades,  but  he  remained  in  character  essentially  weak.  His 
very  virtues  —  good  intentions,  love  of  wife,  loyalty  to  friends 
—  were  continually  abused.  The  queen  was  bitterly  opposed 
to  the  reforming  policies  of  the  National  Assembly  and  actively 
resented  any  diminution  of  royal  authority.  Her  clique  of 
court  friends  and  favorites  disliked  the  decrease  of  pensions 
and  amusements  to  which  they  had  long  been  accustomed. 
Court  and  queen  made  common  cause  in  appealing  to  the  good 
qualities  of  Louis  XVI.  What  was  the  weak  king  to  do  under 
the  circumstances  ?  He  was  to  fall  completely  under  the  domina- 
tion of  his  entourage. 
j  The  result  was  renewed  intrigues  to  employ  force  against  the 
obstreperous  deputies  and  their  allies,  the  populace  of  Paris. 
This  time  it  was  planned  to  bring  royal  troops  from  the  garrisons 
in  Flanders.  And  on  the  night  of  i  October,  1789,  a  supper 
I  was  given  by  the  officers  of  the  bodyguard  at  Versailles  in 
•  honor  of  the  arriving  soldiers.  Toasts  were  drunk  liberally 
and  royalist  songs  were  sung.  News  of  the  "orgy,"  as  it  was 
termed,  spread  like  wildfire  in  Paris,  where  hunger  and  suffering 
were  more  prevalent  than  ever.  That  city  was  starving  while 
Versailles  was  feasting.  The  presence  of  additional  troops  at 
^  Versailles,  it  was  believed,  would  not  only  put  an 

Demonstra-  i       •      i  r     i        a  111  11 

tion  of  the     end  to  the  mdependence  of  the  Assembly  but  would 
Parisian        continue  the  starvation  of  Paris.     More  excited  grew 

Women  at  .   . 

Versailles,      the  Parisians. 

i     October,  Qj^  ^  October  was  presented  a  strange  and  uncouth 

spectacle.     A  long  line  of  the  poorest  women  of  Paris, 

including  some  men  dressed  as  women,  riotous  with  fear  and 

hunger  and  rage,  armed  with  sticks  and  clubs,  screaming  "Bread  ! 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  477 

bread  !  bread  !"  were  straggling-along  the  twelve  miles  of  high- 
way from  Paris  to  Versailles.  They  were  going  to  demand 
bread  of  the  king.  Lafayette  and  his  National  Guardsmen, 
who  had  been  unable  or  unwilling  to  allay  the  excitement  in 
Paris,  marched  at  a  respectful  distance  behind  the  women  out 
to  Versailles. 

By  the  time  Lafayette  reached  the  royal  palace,  the  women 

I  were    surrounding    it,    howling    and    cursing,    and    demanding 

*  bread  or  blood ;    only  the  fixed  bayonets  of  the  troops  from 

Flanders  had  prevented  them  from  invading  the  building,  and 

even  these  regular  soldiers  were  weakening.     Lafayette  at  once 

became  the  man  of  the  hour.     He  sent  the  soldiers  back  to  the 

barracks  and  with  his  own  force  undertook  the  difficult  task 

of  guarding  the  property  and  fives  of  the  royal  family  and  of 

feeding  and  housing  the  women  for  the  night.     Despite  his 

precautions,  it  was  a  wild  night.     There  was  continued  tumult 

in  the  streets  and,  at  one  time,  shortly  before  dawn,  a  gang  of 

I  rioters   actually   broke  into   the  palace   and  groped  about  in 

I   search  of  the  queen's  apartments.     Just  in  the  nick  of  time 

I    the  hated  Marie  Antoinette  hurried  to  safer  quarters,  although 

several  of  her  personal  bodyguard  were  killed  in  the  melee. 

When  the  morning  of  6  October  had  come,  Lafayette  addressed 
the  crowd,  promising  them  that  they  should  be  provided  for, 
and,  at  the  critical  moment,  there  appeared  at  his  side  on  the 
■  balcony  of  the  palace  the  royal  family  —  the  king,  the  little 
1  prince,  the  little  princess,  and  the  queen  —  all  wearing  red- 
white-and-blue  cockades.  A  hush  fell  upon  the  mob.  The 
respected  general  leaned  over  and  gallantly  kissed  the  hand 
of  Marie  Antoinette.  A  great  shout  of  joy  went  up.  Ap- 
parently even  the  queen  had  joined  the  Revolution.  The 
Parisians  were  happy,  and  arrangements  were  made 
for  the  return  journey.  ^  Removal 

The  procession  of  6  October   from   Versailles    to  of  the 
Paris  was  more  curious  and  more  significant  than  Assembly 
that  of  the  preceding  day  in  the  opposite  direction,  from  Ver- 
There  were  still  the  women  and  the  National  Guards-  paVi^ 
men  and  Lafayette  on  his  white  horse  and  a  host  of 
people  of  the  slums,  but  this  time  in  the  midst  of  the  throng 
was  a  great  lumbering  coach,  in  which  rode  Louis  and  his  wife 


478  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  children,  for  Paris  now  insisted  that  the  court  should  no 
longer  possess  the  freedom  of  Versailles  in  which  to  plot  un- 
watched  against  the  rights  of  the  French  people.  All  along 
the  procession  reechoed  the  shout,  ''We  have  the  baker  and 
the  baker's  wife  and  the  little  cook-boy  —  now  we  shall  have 
bread."  And  so  the  court  of  Louis  XVI  left  forever  the  proud, 
imposing  palace  of  Versailles,  and  came  to  humbler  lodgings  ^ 
in  the  city  of  Paris. 

Paris  had  again  saved  the  National  Assembly  from  royal 
intimidation,  and  the  Assembly  promptly  acknowledged  the 
debt  by  following  the  king  to  that  city.  After  October,  1789, 
not  reactionary  Versailles  but  radical  Paris  was  at  once  the 
scene  and  the  impulse  of  the  Revolution. 

The  "Fall  of  the  Bastille"  and  the  "March  of  the  Women  to 
Versailles"  were  the  two  picturesque  events  which  assured  the 
independence  of  the  National  Assembly  from  the  armed  force 
and  intrigue  of  the  court.  Meanwhile,  the  answer  to  the  other 
question  which  we  propounded  above,  "What  direction  would 
the  reforms  of  the  Assembly  take?"  had  been  supplied  by  the 
people  at  large. 

Ever  since  the  assembling  of  the  Estates-General,  ordinary 
administration  of  the  country  had  been  at  a  standstill.  The 
Disintegra-  people,  expecting  great  changes,  refused  to  pay  the 
o?d  ^^^-^  customar)^  taxes  and  imposts,  and  the  king,  for  fear 
throughout  of  the  National  Assembly  and  of  a  popular  uprising, 
France  hesitated  to  compel  tax  collection  by  force  of  arms. 

The  local  officials  did  not  know  whether  they  were  to  obey  the 
Assembly  or  the  king.  In  fact,  the  Assembly  was  for  a  time 
so  busy  with  constitutional  questions  that  it  neglected  to  provide 
for  local  government,  and  the  king  was  always  timorous.  So, 
during  the  summer  of  1789,  the  institutions  of  the  "  old  regime  " 
disappeared  throughout  France,  one  after  another,  because  there 
was  no  popular  desire  to  maintain  them  and  no  competent 
authority  to  enforce  them.  The  insurrection  in  Paris  and  the 
fall  of  the  Bastille  was  the  signal  in  July  for  similar  action  else- 
where :  other  cities  and  towns  substituted  new  elective  officers 
for  the  ancient  royal  or  gild  agents  and  organized  National 
Guards  of  their  own.     At  the  same  time  the  direct  action  of 

*  In  the  palace  of  the  Tuileries. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  479 

the  people  spread  to  the  country  districts.     In  most  provinces 
the  oppressed  peasants  formed  bands  which  stormed  and  burned 
1  the  chateaux  of   the  hated  nobles,  taking  particular 
pains  to  destroy  feudal  or  servile  title-deeds.     ]Monas-  Reprisals 
teries  were  often  ransacked  and  pillaged.     A  few  of  against 
the  unlucky  lords  were  murdered,  and  many  others  ^^^^'^' 
were  driven  into  the  towns  or  across  the  frontier. 
Amid  the  universal  confusion,  the  old  system  of  local  govern- 
ment   completely    collapsed.     The    intendants    and    governors 
quitted   their  posts.     The  ancient   courts  of  justice,   whether 
feudal  or  royal,   ceased  to  act.     The  summer  of   1789  really 
ended  French  absolutism,  and  the  transfer  of  the  central  gov- 
ernment from  Versailles  to  Paris  in  October  merely  confirmed 
an  accomplished  fact. 

Whatever  had  been  hitherto  the  reforming  policies  of  the 
National   Assembly,   the   deputies   henceforth   faced  The  Revo- 
facts  rather  than  theories.     Radical  social  readjust-  ^"  '^^u  "" 
ments  were  now  to  be  effected  along  with   purely  Political 
governmental  and  administrative  changes.     The  Revolution  was 
to  be  social  as  well  as  political. 


THE  END  OF  THE  OLD  REGIME:  THE  NATIONAL  CONSTIT- 
UENT ASSEMBLY,   1789-1791 

By  the  transformation  of  the  Estates-General  into  the  National 
Constituent  Assembly,  France  had  become  to  all  intents  and 
purposes    a    Hmited    monarchy,    in    which    supreme 
authority  was  vested  in  the  nation's  elected  repre-  in*en^s^of 
sentatives.     From  October,  1789,  to  September,  1791,  the  National 
this  Assembly  was  in  session  in  Paris,  endeavoring  i^gg^^g^j 
to  bring  order  out  of  chaos  and  to  fashion  a  new 
France  out  of  the  old  that  was  dying  of  exhaustion  and  decrepi- 
tude.    Enormous   was    the   task,    but   even   greater   were   the 
achievements.     Although    the   work   of    the   Assembly   during 
the  period  was  influenced  in  no  shght  degree  by  the  Parisian 
populace,  nevertheless  it  was  attended  by  comparative  peace 
and  security.     And  the  work  done  was  by  far  the  most  vital 
and  most  lasting  of  the  whole  revolutionary  era. 

Leaving  out  of  consideration  for  the  time  the  frightened  royal 


48o  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

family,  the  startled  noblemen  and  clerg}%  the  determined  peasan- 
try, and  the  excited  townsfolk,  and  not  adhering  too  closely 
to  chronological  order,  let  us  center  our  attention  upon  the 
National  Assembly  and  review  its  major  acts  during  those 
momentous  years,  1 789-1 791. 

The  first  great  work  of  the  Assembly  was  the  legal  destruction 
of  feudahsm  and  serfdom  —  a  long  step  in  the  direction  of 
social  equahty.  We  have  already  noticed  how  in 
Destruction  J^^Y'  while  the  Assembly  was  still  at  Versailles,  the 
of  Feudal-  royal  officers  in  the  country  districts  had  ceased  to 
Serfdom  ^^^^  ^^^  ^"^^"^  ^^^  peasants  had  destroyed  many 
chateaux  amid  scenes  of  unexpected  violence.  News 
of  the  rioting  and  disorder  came  to  the  Assembly  from  every 
province  and  filled  its  members  with  the  Hveliest  apprehension, 

I  A  long  report,  submitted  by  a  special  investigating  committee 
on  4  August,  1789,  gave  such  harrowing  details  of  the  popular 
uprising  that  every  one  was  convinced  that  something  should  be 
done  at  once. 

While  the  Assembly  was  debating  a  declaration  which  might 
calm  revolt,  one  of  the  nobles  —  a  relative  of  Lafayette  —  arose 
"  The  ^^  ^^^  place  and  stated  that  if  the  peasants  had  at- 

August  tacked    the   property    and   privileges   of    the    upper 

^^^  classes,  it  was  because  such  property  and  privileges 

represented  unjust  inequaHty,   that   the  fault  lay  there,   and 

j  that  the  remedy  was  not  to  repress  the  peasants  but  to  suppress 
inequality.     It  was  immediately  moved  and  carried  that  the 

f  Assembly  should  proclaim  equality  of  taxation  for  all  classes 
and  the  suppression  of  feudal  and  servile  dues.  Then  followed 
a  scene  almost  unprecedented  in  history.  Noble  vied  with 
noble,  and  clergyman  with  clergyman,  in  renouncing  the  vested 
rights  of  the  "old  regime."  The  game  laws  were  repudiated. 
The  manorial  courts  were  suppressed.  Serfdom  was  aboHshed. 
;  Tithes  and  all  sorts  of  ecclesiastical  privilege  were  sacrificed. 
'  The  sale  of  offices  was  discontinued.  In  fact,  all  special  pri\'i- 
leges,  whether  of  classes,  of  cities,  or  of  provinces,  were  swept 
away  in  one  consuming  burst  of  enthusiasm.  The  holocaust 
lasted  throughout  the  night  of  the  fourth  of  August.  Within  a 
week  the  various  independent  measures  had  been  consolidated 
into  an  impressive  decree  "aboUshing  the  feudal  system"  and 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  481 

had  received  the  royal  assent.  What  many  reforming  ministers 
had  vainly  labored  for  years  partially  to  accomplish  was  now 
done  by  the  National  Assembly  in  a  few  days  and  with  much 
thoroughness.  The  so-called  "August  Days"  dissolved  the 
ancient  society  of  France. 

It  has  been  customary  to  refer  these  vast  social  changes  to 
the  enthusiasm,  magnanimity,  and  self-sacrifice  of  the  privileged 
orders.  That  there  was  enthusiasm  is  unquestionable.  But 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  nobles  and  clergy  were  so  much 
magnanimous  as  terrorized.  For  the  first  time,  they  were 
genuinely  frightened  by  the  peasants,  and  it  is  possible  that 
the  true  measure  of  their  "magnanimity"  was  their  alarm. 
Then,  too,  if  one  is  to  sacrifice,  he  must  have  something  to 
sacrifice.  At  most,  the  nobles  had  only  legal  claims  to  sur- 
render, for  the  peasants  had  already  taken  forcible  possession 
of  nearly  everything  which  the  decree  accorded  them.  In  fact 
the  decree  of  the  Assembly  constituted  merely  a  legal  and  uni- 
form recognition  of  accomplished  facts. 

The  nobles  may  have  thought,  moreover,  that  liberal  ac- 
quiescence in  the  first  demands  of  the  peasantry  would  save 
themselves  from  further  demands.  At  any  rate,  they  zealously 
set  to  work  in  the  Assembly  to  modify  what  had  been  done, 
to  secure  financial  or  other  indemnity,^  and  to  prevent  the 
enactment  of  additional  social  legislation.  Outside  the  As- 
sembly few  nobles  took  kindly  to  the  loss  of  pri\'ilege  and  prop- 
erty :  the  overwhelming  majority  protested  and  tried  to  stir  up 
civil  war,  and,  when  such  attempts  failed,  they  left  France  and 
enrolled  themselves  among  their  country's  enemies. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  know  precisely  who  were  responsible 
for  the  "August  Days."  The  fact  remains  that  the  "decree 
abolishing  the  feudal  system"  represented  the  most  important 
achievement  of  the  whole  French  Revolution.  Henceforth, 
those  who  profited  by  the  decree  were  loyal  friends  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, while  the  losers  were  its  bitter  opponents. 

^  The  general  effect  of  the  series  of  decrees  of  the  Assembly  from  5  to  1 1 
August,  '  789,  was  to  impose  some  kind  of  financial  redemption  for  many  of  the 
feudal  dues.  It  was  only  in  July,  1793,  almost  four  years  after  the  "August 
Days,"  that  all  feudal  dues  and  rights  were  legally  abolished  without  redemp- 
tion or  compensation. 
21 


] 

n 


482  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

The  second  great  work  of  the  Assembly  was  the  guarantee 
of  individual  rights  and  liberties.  The  old  society  and  govern- 
ment of  France  were  disappearing.  On  what  basis 
Declaration  should  the  new  be  erected?  Great  Britain  had  its 
of  the  Magna  Carta  and  its  Bill  of  Rights  ;  America  had  its 

Man  ^  °  Declaration  of  Independence.  France  was  now 
given  a  ''Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  of  the 
Citizen."  This  document,  which  reflected  the  spirit  of  Rous- 
seau's philosophy  and  incorporated  some  of  the  British  and 
American  provisions,  became  the  platform  of  the  French  Revo- 
lution and  tremendously  influenced  political  thought  in  the 
nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries.  A  few  of  its  most  striking 
sentences  are  as  follows:  "Men  are  born  and  remain  free  and 
equal  in  rights."  The  rights  of  man  are  "liberty,  property, 
security,  and  resistance  to  oppression."  "Law  is  the  expres- 
sion of  the  general  will.  Every  citizen  has  a  right  to  participate 
personally,  or  through  his  representative,  in  its  formation.  It 
must  be  the  same  for  all."  "No  person  shall  be  accused,  ar- 
rested, or  imprisoned  except  in  the  cases  and  according  to  the 
forms  prescribed  by  law."  Rehgious  toleration,  freedom  of 
speech,  and  Hberty  of  the  press  are  affirmed.  The  people  are 
to  control  the  finances,  and  to  the  people  all  officials  of  the 
state  are  responsible.  Finally,  the  influence  of  the  propertied 
classes,  which  were  overwhelmingly  represented  in  the  As- 
sembly, showed  itself  in  the  concluding  section  of  the  Declara- 
tion:  "Since  private  property  is  an  inviolable  and  sacred  right, 
no  one  shall  be  deprived  thereof  except  where  pubhc  necessity, 
legally  determined,  shall  clearly  demand  it,  and  then  only  on 
condition  that  the  owner  shall  have  been  previously  and  equi- 
tably indemnified." 

The  next  great  undertaking  of  the  National  Assembly  was  the 
establishment  of  a  new  and  uniform  administrative  system  in 
France.  The  ancient  and  confusing  "provinces," 
of  Local  "governments,"  "intendancies,"  "pays  d'etat,"  "pays 
Adminis-  d' election"  "  parlemcnts,"  and  "  bailliages  "  were  swept 
away.  The  country  was  divided  anew  into  eighty- 
three  departments,  approximately  uniform  in  size  and  popula- 
tion, and  named  after  natural  features,  such  as  rivers  or  moun- 
tains.    Each  department  was  subdivided  into  districts,  cantons, 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  483 

and  communes,  —  divisions  which  have  endured  in  France  to 
the  present  time.  The  heads  of  the  local  government  were  no 
longer  to  be  appointed  by  the  crown  but  elected  by  the  people, 
and  extensive  powers  were  granted  to  elective  local  councils. 
Provision  was  made  for  a  new  system  of  law  courts  throughout 
the  country,  and  the  judges,  like  the  administrative  officials, 
were  to  be  elected  by  popular  vote.  Projects  were  hkewise  put 
forward  to  unify  and  simplify  the  great  variety  and  mass  of 
laws  which  prevailed  in  different  parts  of  France,  but  this  work 
was  not  brought  to  completion  until  the  time  of  Napoleon 
Bonaparte. 

Another   grave   matter   which    concerned    the   National   As- 
sembly was  the  regulation  of  the  public  finances.     It  will  be 
recalled  that  financial  confusion  was  the  royal  reason  4.  Financial 
for   summoning   the   Estates- General.     And    in    the  Regulation 
early  days  of  the  Assembly,  the  confusion  became  chaos :    it  | 
was  impossible  to  enforce  the  payment  of  direct  taxes ;  indirect  | 
taxes  were  destroyed  by  legislative  decree ;    and  bankers  could  ^ 
not  be  induced  to  make  new  loans.     Therefore,  it  was  g    gg^.^. 
to  heroic  measures  that  the  Assembly  resorted  to  save  larization 
the   state   from   bankruptcy.     To   provide   funds,    a  property      / 
heavy  blow  was  struck  at  one  of  the  chief  props  of  The  As- 
the     "old    regime "^ — the     Catholic     Church.     The  ^'^"^  ^ 
Church,  as  we  have  seen,  owned  at  least  a  fifth  of  the  soil  of 
France,  and  it  was  now  resolved  to  seize  these  rich  church  lands,  ;' 
and  to  utilize  them  as  security  for  the  issue  of  paper  money  I 
—  the  assignats.     As  partial  indemnity  for  the  wholesale  con- 
fiscation,   the   state   was   to  undertake   the  payment  of  fixed 
salaries  to  the  clergy.     Thus  by  a  single  stroke  the  financial  j 
pressure  was  relieved,  the  Church  was  deprived  of  an  important 
source  of  its  strength,  and  the  clergy  were  made  dependent 
on  the  new  order.     Of  course,  as  often  happens  in  similar  cases, 
the  issue  of  paper  money  was  so  increased  that  in  time  it  ex- 
ceeded the  security  and  brought  fresh  troubles  to  the  state, 
but  for  the  moment  the  worst  dangers  were  tided  over. 

The  ecclesiastical  policies  and  acts  of  the  National  Assembly 
were  perhaps  the  least  efficacious  and  the  most  fateful  achieve- 
ments of  the  Revolution.  Yet  it  would  be  difficult  to  perceive 
how  they  could  have  been  less  radical  than  they  were.     The 


484  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Church  appeared  to  be  indissolubly  linked  with  the  fortunes  of 
old  absolutist  France  ;  the  clergy  comprised  a  particularly  privi- 
leged class  ;  and  the  leaders  and  great  majority  of  the 
Legislation  Assembly  were  filled  with  the  skeptical,  Deistic,  and 
against  the  anti-Christian  philosophy  of  the  time.  In  November, 
Church*^  1789,  the  church  property  was  confiscated.  In  Feb- 
ruary, 1790,  the  monasteries  and  other  rehgious 
houses  were  suppressed.  In  April,  absolute  rehgious  tolera- 
tion was  proclaimed.  In  August,  1790,  the  *' Civil  Constitu- 
tion of  the  Clergy"  was  promulgated,  by  which  the  bishops 
and  priests,  reduced  in  numbers,  were  made  a  civil  body :  they 
were  to  be  elected  by  the  people,  paid  by  the  state,  and  sepa- 
rated from  the  sovereign  control  of  the  pope.  In  December, 
the  Assembly  forced  the  reluctant  king  to  sign  a  decree  com- 
[  pelling  all  the  clergy  to  take  a  solemn  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
"Civil  Constitution." 

The  pope,  who  had  already  protested  against  the  seizure  of 
church  property  and   the  expulsion  of  the  monks,   now  con- 
demned  the  "Civil  Constitution"  and  forbade  Catho- 
Opposition     Hcs  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance.     Thus,  the  issue 
to  the  ^g^g    squarely  joined.     Such  as  took  the  oath  were 

excommunicated  by  the  pope.  Such  as  refused  com- 
pliance were  deprived  of  their  salaries  and  threatened  with 
imprisonment.  Up  to  this  time,  the  bulk  of  the  lower  clergy, 
poor  themselves  and  in  immediate  contact  with  the  suffering 
of  the  peasants,  had  undoubtedly  sympathized  with  the  course 
of  the  Revolution,  but  henceforth  their  convictions  and  th&ir 
consciences  came  into  conflict  with  devotion  to  their  country. 
They  followed  their  conscience  and  either  incited  the  peasants, 
over  whom  they  exercised  considerable  influence,  to  oppose 
further  revolution,  or  emigrated  ^  from  France  to  swell  the 
number  of  those  who,  dissatisfied  with  the  course  of  events 
in  their  own  country,  would  seek  the  first  opportunity  to  undo 
the  work  of  the  Assembly.  The  Cathohc  Church,  as  well  as  the 
\  hereditary  nobility,  became  an  unwearied  opponent  of  the  French 
'  Revolution. 

^  The  clergy  who  would  not  take  the  oath  were  called  the  "non-juring" 
clergy.  Those  who  left  France,  together  with  the  noble  emigrants,  were  called 
"emigres." 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  485 

Amid  all  these  sweeping  reforms  and  changes,  the  National 
Constituent  Assembly  was  making  steady  progress  in  drafting  a 
I    written  constitution  which  would  clearly  define  the  ^   -j-^e 
1    agencies  of  government,  and  tlieir  respective  powers,  Constitu- 
t    in  tlie  new  hmited  monarchy.     This  constitution  was    '^'^^  "^^^ 
completed  in  1791  and  signed  by  the  king  —  he  could  do  nothing 
V  else  —  and  at  once  went  into  full  effect.     It  was  the  first  written 
constitution   of  %ny   importance   that   any  European   country 
had   had,  and  was  preceded  only  slightly  in  point  of  time  by 
that  of  the  United  States.^ 
,      The  Constitution  of  1791,  as  it  was  called,  provided,  like  the 
American  constitution,  for  the  "separation  of  powers,"  that  is, 
'  that  the  law-making,  law-enforcing,  and  law-interpreting  func- 
tions of  government  should  be  kept  quite  distinct  as  the  legis- 
lative, executive,  and   judicial  departments,   and  should   each 
spring,  in  last  analysis,  from  the  will  of  the  people.     This  idea 
had  been  elaborated  by  Montesquieu,  and  deeply  affected  the 
constitution-making  of  the  eighteenth  century  both  in  France 
and  in  the  United  States. 
I      The  legislative  authority  was  vested  in  one  chamber,  styled 
I  the  "Legislative  Assembly,"  the  members  of  which  were  chosen 
'  by  means  of  a  compUcated  system  of  indirect  election.-  Legislative 
The   distrust  with  which  the  bourgeois   framers   of  Provisions 
the  constitution  regarded  the  lower  classes  was  shown  not  only 
in  this  check  upon  direct  election  but  also  in  the  requirements 
I   that  the  privilege  of  voting  should  be  exercised  exclusively  by 
1  "active"  citizens,  that  is,  by  citizens  who  paid  taxes,  and  that 
the  right  to  hold  office  should  be  restricted  to  property-holders. 
Nominally  the  executive  authority  resided  in  the  hereditary 
king.     In  this  respect,  most  of  the  French  reformers  thought 
they  were  imitating  the  British  government,  but  as  a 
matter   of   fact   they   made   the   kingship   not   even  Qf^^e 
ornamental.     True,   they  accorded  to  the  king  the  King  under 

•    1  r  .•  ,1  ^'  r  J.    the  Consti- 

right  to  postpone  for  a  time  the  execution  01  an  act  tytj^n 
of  the  legislature  —  the  so-called  "suspensive  veto" 

iThe  present  American  constitution  was  drafted  in  1787  and  went  into  effect 
in  1789,  the  year  that  the  Estates-General  assembled. 

2  That  is  to  say,  the  people  would  vote  for  electors,  and  the  electors  for  the 
members  of  the  Assembly. 


486  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

—  but  they  deprived  him  of  all  control  over  local  government, 
over  the  army  and  navy,  and  over  the  clergy.  Even  his  minis- 
ters were  not  to  sit  in  the  Assembly.  Tremendous  had  been  the 
decline  of  royal  power  in  France  during  those  two  years,  1789- 
1791. 

This  may  conclude  our  brief  summary  of  the  work  of  the 
National  Constituent  Assembly.     If  we  review  it  as  a  whole, 

we  are  impressed  by  the  immense  destruction  which 
of"th?^'^^  it  effected.  No  other  body  of  legislators  has  ever 
Work  of  demoHshed  so  much  in  the  same  brief  period.  The 
!use!^bir*^  old  form  of  government,  the  old  territorial  divisions, 

the  old  financial  system,  the  old  judicial  and  legal 
regulations,  the  old  ecclesiastical  arrangements,  and,  most 
significant  of  all,  the  old  condition  of  holding  land  —  serfdom 
and  feudahsm  —  all  were  shattered.  Yet  all  this  destruction 
was  not  a  mad  whim  of  the  moment.  It  had  been  preparing 
slowly  and  painfully  for  many  generations.  It  was  foreshadowed 
by  the  mass  of  well-considered  complaints  in  the  cahiers.  It 
was  achieved  not  only  by  the  decrees  of  the  Assembly,  but  by 
the  forceful  expression  of  the  popular  will. 

THE    LIMITED    MONARCHY    IN    OPERATION:     THE    LEGIS- 
LATIVE   ASSEMBLY    (1791-1792)    AND    THE    OUTBREAK    OF 
FOREIGN  WAR 

Great  pubHc  rejoicing  welcomed  the  formal  inauguration  of 
the  limited  monarchy  in  1791.  Many  beheved  that  a  new  era 
Brief  °f  peace   and  prosperity  was  dawning   for   France. 

Duration  of  Yet  the  extravagant  hopes  which  were  widely  enter- 
Mona^rchy  tained  for  the  success  of  the  new  regime  were  doomed 
in  France,  to  Speedy  and  bitter  disappointment.  The  new 
1791-1792  government  encountered  all  manner  of  difficulties, 
the  country  rapidly  grew  more  radical  in  sentiment  and  action, 
and  within  a  single  year  the  hmited  monarchy  gave  way  to  a 
repubhc.  The  estabhshment  of  the  repubhc  was  the  second 
great  phase  of  the  Revolution.  Why  it  was  possible  and  even 
inevitable  may  be  gathered  from  a  survey  of  political  conditions 
in  France  during  1792,  —  at  once  the  year  of  trial  for  limited 
monarchy  and  the  year  of  transition  to  the  republic. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  487 

By  no  means  did  all  Frenchmen  accept  cheerfully  and  con- 
tentedly the  work  of  the  National  Constituent  As-  Sources  of 
sembly.     Of  the  numerous  dissenters,  some  thought  Opposition 
it  went  too  far  and  some  thought  it  did  not  go  far  Limited 
enough.     The  former  may  be  styled  "reactionaries"  ^^onarchy 
and  the  latter  "radicals." 

The  reactionaries  embraced  the  bulk  of  the  formerly  privileged 
I  nobility  and  the  non-juring  clergy.     The  nobles  had  left  France 
in  large  numbers  as  soon  as  the  lirst  signs  of  violence  Reaction- 
appeared  —  about  the  time  of  the  fall  of  the  Bastille  ^"^^ 
and    the   peasant   uprisings   in   the   provinces.     Many   of    the 
clergy  had  similarly  departed  from  their  homes  when  the  anti- 
clerical measures  of  the  Assembly  rendered  it  no  longer  possible 
for  them  to  follow  the  dictates  of  conscience.     These  i.  The 
reactionary  exiles,  or  emigres  as  they  were  termed,  Emigres 
I  collected  in  force  along  the  northern  and  eastern  frontier,  es- 
pecially at  Coblenz  on  the  Rhine.     They  possessed  an  influential 
leader  in  the  king's  owti  brother,  the  count  of  Artois,  and  they 
maintained   a   perpetual   agitation,   by  means   of  newspapers, 
pamphlets,  and  intrigues,  against  the  new  regime.     They  were 
anxious  to  regain  their  privileges  and  property,  and  to  restore 
everything,  as  far  as  possible,  to  precisely  the  same  position  it 
had  occupied  prior  to  1789. 

Nor  were  the  reactionaries  devoid  of  support  within  France. 
It  was  believed  that  the  royal  family,  now  carefully  watched 
in  Paris,  sympathized  with  their  efforts.  So  long  as  2.  The 
Mirabeau,  the  ablest  leader  in  the  National  Assembly,  ^°^^^ 
was  alive,  he  had  never  ceased  urging  the  king  to  accept  the 
reforms  of  the  Revolution  and  to  give  no  countenance  to  agita- 
tion beyond  the  frontiers.  In  case  the  king  should  find  his 
position  in  Paris  intolerable,  he  had  been  advised  by  Mirabeau 
to  withdraw  into  western  or  southern  France  and  gather  the 
loyal  nation  about  him.  But  unfortunately,  Mirabeau,  worn 
out  by  dissipation  and  cares,  died  prematurely  in  April,  1791. 
Only  two  months  later  the  royal  family  attempted  to  follow 
the  course  against  which  they  had  been  warned.  The  Flight 
Louis  XVI  and  Marie  Antoinette,  in  an  effort  to  rid  ^o  Varennes 
themselves  of  the  spying  vigilance  of  the  Parisians,  disguised 
themselves,  fled  from  the  capital,  and  made  straight  for  the 


\ 


488  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

eastern  frontier,  apparently  to  join  the  emigres.  At  Varennes, 
near  the  border,  the  royal  fugitives  were  recognized  and  turned 
back  to  Paris,  which  henceforth  became  for  them  rather  a  prison 
than  a  capital.  Although  Louis  subsequently  swore  a  solemn 
oath  to  uphold  the  constitution,  his  personal  popularity  vanished 
with  his  ill-starred  flight,  and  his  wife  —  the  hated  "Austrian 
woman"  —  was  suspected  with  good  reason  of  being  in  secret 
correspondence  with  the  emigres  as  well  as  with  foreign  govern- 
ments. Marie  Antoinette  was  more  detested  than  ever.  The 
I  king's  oldest  brother,  the  count  of  Provence,  was  more  success- 
1  ful  than  the  king  in  the  flight  of  June,  1791  :  he  eluded  detection 
and  joined  the  count  of  Artois  at  Coblenz. 

Had    the    reactionaries   been    restricted    entirely    to   emigres 

and  the  royal  family,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  they  would  have 

been  so  troublesome  as  they  were.     They  were  able, 

ative  and       howcver,  to  sccure  considerable  popular  support  in 

CathoUc         France.     A  small  group  in  the  Assembly  shared  their 

Peasants  o        i  j 

views  and  proposed  the  most  extravagant  measures 

in  order  to  embarrass  the  work  of  that  body.     Conservative 

clubs  existed  among  the  upper  and  well-to-do  classes  in   the 

I    larger  cities.     And  in  certain  districts  of  western  France,  es- 

1    pecially   in    Brittany,    Poitou    (La   Vendee),    and    Anjou,    the 

peasants  developed  hostility  to  the  course  of  the  Revolution : 

their  extraordinary  devotion  to  Catholicism  placed  them  under 

the  influence  of  the  non-juring  clergy,  and  their  class  feeling 

against  townspeople  induced  them  to  believe  that  the  Revolution, 

carried  forward  by  the  bourgeoisie,  was  essentially  in  the  interests 

of  the  bourgeoisie.     Riots  occurred  in  La  Vendee  throughout 

1 791   and  1792  with  increasing  frequency  until  at  length  the 

district  blazed  into  open  rebelhon  against  the  radicals. 

.        More   dangerous   to    the   political   settlement   of    1791    than 

\    the  opposition  of  the  reactionaries  was  that  of  the  radicals  — ■ 

those  Frenchmen  who  thought  that  the  Revolution 

had  not  gone  far  enough.     The  real  explanation  of 

the  radical  movement  lies  in  the  conflict  of  interest  between 

the  poor  working  people  of  the  towns  and  the  middle  class,  or 

bourgeoisie.      The  latter,  as  has  been  repeatedly  emphasized, 

possessed   the  brains,  the  money,  and  the  education :    it  was 

they  who  had  been  overwhelmingly  represented  in  the  National 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  489 

Assembly.     The  former  were  degraded,  poverty-stricken,  and  ig- 
norant, but  tliey  constituted  tlie  bulk  of  the  population  in  the 
cities,   notably  in  Paris,   and   they  were    both    con-  ^    jj^^ 
scious  of  their  sorry  condition  and  desperately  deter-  Bourgeois 
mined  to  improve  it.     These  so-called  "proletarians,"     ®^  ®" 
though  hardly  directly  represented  in  the  Assembly,  neverthe- 
less fondly  expected  the  greatest  benefits  from  the  work  of  that 
bod}'.     For  a  while  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  proleta-  2.  The  Pro- 
riat  cooperated  :   the  former  carried  reforms  through  letarians 
the  Assembly,  the  latter  defended  by  armed  violence  the   free- 
dom of  the  Assembly ;    both  participated  in  the  capture  of  the 
Bastille,  in  the  establishment  of  the  commune,  and  in  the  trans- 
fer of  the  seat  of  government  from  Versailles   to  Paris.     So 
long  as  they  faced  a  serious  common  danger  from  the  court  and 
privileged  orders,  they  worked  in  harmony. 

But  as  soon  as  the  Revolution  had  run  its  first  stage  and  had 
succeeded  in  reducing  the  royal  power  and  in  abolishing  many 
special  pri\'ileges  of  the  nobles  and  clergy,  a  sharp  conflict  of 
cleavage  became  evident  between  the  former  allies  —  interests 
between  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  proletariat.  The  Bourgeoisie 
bourgeoisie,  to  whom  was  due  the  enactment  of  the  and  Pro- 
great  reforms  of  the  National  Constituent  Assembly,  ®*^"^* 
profited  by  those  reforms  far  more  than  any  other  class  in  the 
community.  Their  trade  and  industry  were  stimulated  by  the 
removal  of  the  ancient  royal  and  feudal  restrictions.  Their  in- 
creased wealth  enabled  them  to  buy  up  the  estates  of  the  out- 
lawed emigres  and  the  confiscated  lands  of  the  Church.  They 
secured  an  effective  control  of  all  branches  of  government,  local 
and  central.  Of  course,  the  peasantry  also  benefited  to  no 
shght  extent,  but  their  benefits  were  certainly  less  impressive 
than  those  of  the  bourgeoisie.  Of  all  classes  in  France,  the 
urban  proletariat  seemed  to  have  gained  the  least :  to  be  sure 
they  were  guaranteed  by  paper  documents  certain  theoretical 
"rights  and  liberties,"  but  what  had  been  done  for  their  material 
well-being?  They  had  obtained  no  property.  They  had  ex- 
perienced no  greater  ease  in  earning  their  daily  bread.  And  in 
1 791  they  seemed  as  far  from  realizing  their  hopes  of  betterment 
as  they  had  been  in  1789,  for  the  bourgeois  constitution-makers 
had  proxided  that  only  taxpayers  could  vote  and  only  property- 


490  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

owners  could  hold  office.  The  proletariat,  thereby  cut  off  from 
all  direct  share  in  the  conduct  of  government,  could  not  fail  to 
be  convinced  that  in  the  first  phase  of  the  Revolution  they  had 
merely  exchanged  one  set  of  masters  for  another,  that  at  the 
expense  of  the  nobles  and  clergy  they  had  exalted  the  bourgeoisie, 
and  that  they  themselves  were  still  downtrodden  and  oppressed. 
Radical  changes  in  the  constitution  and  radical  social  legislation 
i:i  their  own  behalf  became  the  policies  of  the  proletariat; 
\dolence  would  be  used  as  a  means  to  an  end,  if  other  means 
failed. 
.  Not  all  of  the  bourgeoisie  were  thoroughly  devoted  to  the 
settlement  of  1791.  Most  of  them  doubtless  were.  But  a 
thoughtful  and  conspicuous  minority  allied  themselves  with 
the  proletariat.  Probably  in  many  instances  it  was  for  the 
selfish  motive  of  personal  ambition  that  this  or  that  middle- 
class  individual  prated  much  about  his  love  for  "the  people" 
and  shed  tears  over  their  wretchedness  and  made  all  manner  of 
election  promises  to  them.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
were  sincere  and  altruistic  bourgeois  who  had  been  converted 
to  the  extreme  democratic  doctrines  of  Rousseau  and  who  were 
deeply  touched  by  the  misery  of  the  lowest  classes.  It  was 
A  under  the  leadership  of  such  men  that  the  proletariat  grew 
lever  more  radical  until  they  sought  by  force  to  establish 
democracy  in  France. 

The  radical  movement  centered  in  Paris,  where  now  hved 
the  royal  family  and  where  the  legislature  met.  With  the 
Center  of  object  of  intimidating  the  former  and  controlling  the 
Radicalism  latter,  the  agitation  made  rapid  headway  during  1791 
in  ans  ^^^^  1 792.  It  was  conducted  by  means  of  inflamma- 
tory newspapers,  coarse  pamphlets,  and  bitter  speeches.  It  ap- 
pealed to  both  the  popular  reason  and  the  popular  emotions. 
It  was  backed  up  and  rendered  efficient  by  the  organization  of 
revolutionary  "clubs." 

These  clubs  were  interesting  centers  of  political  and  social 
agitation.  Their  origin  was  traceable  to  the  "eating  clubs" 
^.    ^.  ,        which  had  been  formed  at  Versailles  by  various  dcpu- 

The  Clubs  .  ,         ,      .       ,  ,         i     •  ,  i  11 

ties  who  desired  to  take  their  meals  together,  but  the 

I   idea  progressed  so  far  that  by  1791  nearly  every  cafe  in  Paris 

aspired  to  be  a  meeting  place  for  politicians  and  "patriots." 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  491 

Although  some  of  the  chibs  were  strictly  constitutional,  and  even, 
in  a  few  instances,  professedly  reactionary,  nevertheless  the  greater 
/   number  and  the  most  influential  were  radical.     Such  cordeliers 
\   were  the  Cordelier  and  Jacobin  clubs.     The  former,  and 
organized  as  a  "society  of  the  friends  of  the  rights       °  ^°^ 
of  man  and  of  the  citizen,"  was  very  radical  from  its  inception 
and  enrolled  in  its  membership  the  foremost  revolutionaries  of 
Paris.     The  latter,  starting  out  as  a  "society  of  the  friends  of 
the  constitution,"  counted  among  its  early  members  such  men 
as  Mirabeau,   Sieyes,   and  Lafayette,  but  subsequently  under 
!  the  leadership  of  Robespierre,   transformed  itself  into  an  or- 
ganization quite  as  radical  as  the  Cordeliers.     It  is  an  interesting 
fact  that  both  these  radical  clubs  derived  their  popular  names 
from  monasteries,  in  whose  confiscated  buildings  they  customarily 
met. 

From  Paris  the  radical  movement  radiated  in  all  directions. 
Pamphlets  and  newspapers  were  spread  broadcast.  The  Jacobin 
club  established  a  regular  correspondence  with  branch  Radical 
f  clubs  or  kindred  societies  which  sprang  up  in  other  Propaganda 
French  towns.  The  radicals  were  everywhere  inspired  by  the 
same  zeal  and  aided  by  a  splendid  organization. 

Of  the  chief  radical  leaders,  it  may  be  convenient  at  this 
point  to  introduce  three  —  Marat,  Danton,  and  Robespierre. 
'  All  belonged  to  the  bourgeoisie  by  birth  and  training.  Radical 
but  by  conviction  they  became  the  mouthpieces  of  the  l^eaders 
proletariat.     All  played  important  roles  in  subsequent  scenes 
of  the  Revolution. 

Marat  {c.  1 742-1 793),  had  he  never  become  interested  in  poHtics 
and  conspicuous  in  the  Revolution,  might  have  been  remem- 
bered in  history  as  a  scientist  and  a  man  of  letters.   „     ^ 

■^  ...  Marat 

J  He  had  been  a  physician,  and  for  skill  m  his  profession, 
1  as  well  as  for  contributions  to  the  science  of  physics,  he  had 
received  an  honorary  degree  from  St.  Andrews  University  in 
Scotland,  and  for  a  time  he  was  in  the  service  of  the  count  of 
Artois.  The  convocation  of  the  Estates-General  turned  his 
attention  to  public  affairs.  In  repeated  and  vigorous  pamphlets 
he  combated  the  idea  then  prevalent  in  France  that  his  country- 
men should  adopt  a  constitution  similar  to  that  of  Great  Britain. 
During  several  years'  sojourn  in  Great  Britain  he  had  observed 


492  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

that  that  country  was  being  ruled  by  an  oHgarchy  which,  while 
using  the  forms  of  liberty  and  pretending  to  represent  the  coun- 
try, was  in  reality  using  its  power  for  the  promotion  of  its  own 
narrow  class  interests.  He  made  up  his  mind  that  real  reform 
must  benefit  all  the  people  alike  and  that  it  could  be  secured 
only  by  direct  popular  action.  This  was  the  simple  message  that 
filled  the  pages  of  the  Ami  du  peuple  —  the  Friend  of  the 
People  —  a  newspaper  which  he  edited  from  1789  to  1792. 
With  fierce  invective  he  assailed  the  court,  the  clergy,  the 
nobles,  even  the  bourgeois  Assembly.  Attached  to  no  party 
and  with  no  detailed  policies,  he  sacrificed  almost  everything 
to  his  single  mission.  No  poverty,  misery,  or  persecution  could 
keep  him  quiet.  Forced  even  to  hide  in  cellars  and  sewers, 
where  he  contracted  a  loathsome  skin  disease,  he  persevered 
in  his  frenzied  appeals  to  the  Parisian  populace  to  take  matters 
into  their  own  hands.  By  1792  Marat  was  a  man  feared  and 
hated  by  the  authorities  but  loved  and  venerated  by  the  masses 
of  the  capital.^ 

No  less  radical  but  far  more  statesmanlike  was  Danton  (1759- 
1794),  who  has  been  called  "  a  sort  of  middle-class  Mirabeau." 
^  The  son  of  a  farmer,  he  had  studied  law,  had  purchased 

Danton  .   .  i  c 

a  position  as  advocate  of  the  Royal  Council,  and,  be- 
fore the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution,  had  acquired  a  reputation 
not  only  as  a  brilliant  young  lawyer,  but  also  as  a  man  of  liberal 
tastes,  fond  of  books,  and  happy  in  his  domestic  life.  Like  Mira- 
beau, he  was  a  person  of  powerful  physique  and  of  stentorian 
voice,  a  skilled  debater  and  a  convincing  orator ;  unlike  Mira- 
beau, he  himself  remained  calm  and  self-possessed  while  arousing 
his  audiences  to  the  highest  pitch  of  enthusiasm.  Like  Mirabeau, 
too,  he  was  not  so  primarily  interested  in  the  welfare  of  his  own 
social  class  as  in  that  of  the  class  below  him :  what  the  noble- 
man Mirabeau  was  to  the  bourgeoisie,  the  bourgeois  Danton  was 
to  the  Parisian  proletariat.  Brought  to  the  fore,  through  the 
favor  of  Mirabeau,  in  the  early  days  of  the  Revolution,  Danton 
at  once  showed  himself  a  strong  advocate  of  real  democracy.  In 
1790,  in  conjunction  with  Marat  and  Camille  Desmoulins,  he 
founded  the  Cordelier  Club,  the  activities  of  which  he  directed 

*  Marat  was  assassinated  on  13  July,  1793,  by  Charlotte  Corday,  a  young  woman 
who  was  fanatically  attached  to  the  Girondist  faction. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  493 

throughout  1791  and  1792  against  the  royal  family  and  the  whole 
cause  of  monarch}-.  An  influential  member  of  the  commune  of 
'  Paris,  he  was  largely  instrumental  in  crystallizing  public  opinion 
in  favor  of  republicanism.  Danton  was  rough  and  courageous, 
but  neither  venal  nor  bloodthirsty. 

Less  practical  than  Danton  and  further  removed  from  the 
proletariat  than  Marat,  MaximiHen  Robespierre  (i 758-1 794) 
nevertheless  combined   such   qualities  as  made  him  „  ^ 

Robespierre 

the  most  promment  exponent  of  democracy  and  re- 
publicanism. Descended  from  a  iniddle-class  family  of  Irish 
extraction,  Robespierre  had  been  a  classmate  of  Camille  Des- 
moulins  in  the  law  school  of  the  University  of  Paris,  and  had 
practiced  law  with  some  success  in  his  native  town  of  Arras. 
(He  was  appointed  a  criminal  judge,  but  soon  resigned  that 
'  post  because  he  could  not  endure  to  inflict  the  death  penalty. 
In  his  immediate  circle  he  acquired  a  reputation  as  a  writer, 
speaker,  and  something  of  a  dandy.  Elected  to  the  Third 
Estate  in  1789,  he  took  his  place  with  the  extreme  radicals  in 
that  body  —  the  "thirty  voices,"  as  Mirabeau  contemptuously 
called  them.  Robespierre  had  read  Rousseau  from  cover  to 
cover  and  beHeved  in  the  philosopher's  doctrines  with  all  his 
heart  so  that  he  would  have  gone  to  death  for  them.  In  the. 
belief  that  they  eventually  would  succeed  and  regenerate  France 
and  all  mankind,  he  was  ready  to  work  with  unwearied  patience. 
The  paucity  of  his  followers  in  the  National  Assembly  and  the 
overpowering  personality  of  Mirabeau  prevented  him  from 
exercising  much  influence  in  framing  the  new  constitution,  and 
he  gradually  turned  for  support  to  the  people  of  Paris.  He  was 
already  a  member  of  the  Jacobin  Club,  which,  by  the  withdrawal 
of  its  more  conservative  members  in  1791,  came  then  under 
his  leadership.  Thenceforth  the  Jacobin  Club  was  a  most 
effective  instrument  for  establishing  social  democracy  (although 
it  was  not  committed  to  repubhcanism  until  August,  1792), 
and  Robespierre  was  its  oracle.  Robespierre  was  never  a  dema- ' 
gogue  in  the  present  sense  of  the  word :  he  was  always  em- 
phatically a  gentleman  and  a  man  of  culture,  sincere  and  truthful. 
Although  he  labored  strenuously  for  the  "rights"  of  the  pro- 
letariat, he  never  catered  to  their  tastes ;  to  the  last  day  of  his 
life  he  retained  the  knee-breeches  and  silk  stockings  of  the  old 
society  and  wore  his  hair  powdered. 


494  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  understand  why  the  constitutional 
monarchy  floundered.  It  had  no  great  leaders  to  strengthen 
it  and  to  conduct  it  through  the  narrow  strait.  It  was  bound 
to  strike  the  rocks  of  reaction  on  one  side  or  those  of  radicalism 
on  the  other.  Against  such  fearless  and  determined  assailants 
as  Robespierre,  Danton,  and  Marat,  it  was  helpless. 

The  new  government  came  into  being  with  the  first  meeting 
of  the  Legislative  Assembly  on  i  October,  1791.  Immediately 
Difficulties  ^^^  troubles  began.  The  members  of  the  Legislative 
Confront-  Assembly  were  wholly  inexperienced  in  parliamentary 
Leysiative  procedure,  for  an  unfortunate  self-denying  ordinance  ^ 
Assembly,  of  the  retiring  Constituent  Assembly  had  prohibited 
^^^^  any  of  its  members  from  accepting  election  to   the 

new  body.  The  Legislative  Assembly  contained  deputies  of 
fundamentally  diverse  views  who  quarreled  long  though  elo- 
quently among  themselves.  Moreover,  it  speedily  came  into 
conflict  with  the  king,  who  vainly  endeavored  to  use  his  con- 
stitutional right  of  suspensive  veto  in  order  to  check  its  activi- 
ties. Combined  with  these  problems  was  the  popular  agitation 
and  excitement :  a  peasant  revolt  in  La  Vendee,  the  angry 
threats  of  emigre  nobles  and  non-juring  clergy  across  the  eastern 
iron  tier,  the  loud  tumults  of  the  proletariat  of  Paris  and  of  other 
large  cities  as  well. 

The  difficulties  of  the  Umited  monarchy  were  further  com- 
plicated by  an  embarrassing  foreign  situation.  It  will  be  borne 
in  mind  that  all  important  European  states  still  ad- 
HosTiiUy  hered  rigidly  to  the  social  institutions  of  the  "old 
to  the  regime"  and,  with  the  exception  of  Great  Britain, 

Revdution  ^*^  diviue-right  monarchy.  Outside  of  France  there 
appeared  as  yet  no  such  thing  as  "public  opinion," 
certainly  no  sign  among  the  lower  classes  of  any  opinion  favor- 
able to  revolution.  In  Great  Britain  alone  was  there  a  con- 
stitutional monarchy,  and  in  the  early  days  of  the  French 
Revolution,  so  long  as  British  statesmen  could  flatter  themselves 
that  their  neighbors  across  the  Channel  were  striving  to  imitate 
their  political  system,  these  same  public  men  sympathized  with 
the  course  of  events.  But  when  it  became  evident  that  the 
Revolution  was  going  further,  that  it  aimed  at  a  great  social 

^  Proposed  by  Robespierre. 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  495 

leveling,  that  it  was  a  movement  of  the  masses  in  behalf  of 
the  lowest  classes  in  the  community,  then  even  British  criticism 
assailed  it.  At  the  close  of  1790  Edmund  Burke  published 
his  Reflections  on  the  Revolution  in  France,  a  bitter  arraignment 
of  the  newer  tendencies  and  a  rhetorical  panegyric  of  con- 
servatism. Although  Burke's  sensational  work  was  speedily 
and  logically  answered  by  several  forceful  thinkers,  including 
the  brilHant  Thomas  Paine,  nevertheless  it  long  held  its  place 
as  the  classical  expression  of  official  Britain's  horror  of  social 
equahty  and  of  "mob  violence."  The  book  was  likewise  re- 
ceived with  such  approval  by  the  monarchs  of  continental 
Europe,  who  interpreted  it  as  a  telling  defense  of  their  position, 
that  Catherine  of  Russia  personally  comphmented  the  author 
and  the  puppet  king  of  Poland  sent  him  a  flamboyant  glorifica- 
tion and  a  gold  medal.  Thenceforth  the  monarchs,  as  well  as 
the  nobles  and  clergy,  of  Europe  saw  in  the  French  Revolution 
only  a  menace  to  their  political  and  social  privileges :  were  it 
communicated  to  the  lower  classes,  the  Revolution  might  work 
the  same  havoc  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  Europe 
that  it  was  working  in  France.  The  "benevolent  despots"  had 
sincere  desires  to  labor  for  the  welfare  of  the  people ;  they  shud- 
dered at  the  thought  of  what  the  people  themselves  would  do  in 
laboring  for  their  own  welfare. 

Of  the  monarchs  of  Europe,  several  had  special  reasons  for 
viewing  the  progress  of  the  Revolution  with  misgiving.     The 
Bourbons  of  Spain  and  of  the  Two  Sicilies  were  united 
by  blood  and  family  compacts  with  the  ruhng  dynasty  Roman°  ^ 
of  France:    any  behtthng  of  the  latter's  power  was  Emperor 
bound   to  affect  disastrously  the  domestic  position  pjonof^™ 
and  foreign  pohcy   of   the   former.     Then,   too,   the  Opposition 
French  queen,   Marie  Antoinette,  was  an  Austrian  Revolution 
Habsburg.     Her  family  interests  were  in  measure  at 
stake.     In  the  Austrian  dominions,  the  visionary  and  unprac- 
tical Joseph  II  had  died  in  1790  and  had  been  succeeded  by 
another  brother  of  Marie  Antoinette,   the  gifted  though  un- 
emotional Emperor  Leopold  II.     Leopold  skillfully  extricated 
himself  from  the  embarrassments  at  home  and  abroad  bequeathed 
him  by  his  predecessor  and  then  turned  his  attention  to  French 
affairs.     He  was  in  receipt  of  constant  and  now  frantic  appeals 


496  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

from  his  sister  to  aid  Louis  XVI  against  the  revolutionaries. 
He  knew  that  the  Austrian  Netherlands,  whose  rebellion  he 
had  suppressed  with  difficulty,  were  saturated  with  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Revolution  and  that  many  of  their  inhabitants 
would  welcome  annexation  to  France.  As  chief  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire,  he  must  keep  revolutionary  agitation  out  of 
the  Germanics  and  protect  the  border  provinces  against  French 
aggression.  All  these  factors  served  to  make  the  Emperor 
Leopold  the  foremost  champion  of  the  "old  regime"  in  Europe 
and  incidentally  of  the  royal  cause  in  France. 

Now  it  so  happened  that  the  emperor  found  a  curious  ally  in 
Prussia.  The  death  of  Frederick  the  Great  in  1786  had  called 
to  the  throne  of  that  country  a  distinctly  inferior  sort 
tion^or'  o^  potentate,  Frederick  WilHam  II  (i  786-1 797),  who 
Piiinitz,  combined  with  a  nature  at  once  sensual  and  pleasure- 
iToT^*'  loving  a  remarkable  religious  zeal.  He  neglected  the 
splendid  military  machine  wliich  Frederick  William  I 
and  Frederick  the  Great  had  constructed  with  infinite  patience 
and  thoroughness.  He  lavished  great  wealth  upon  art  as  well  as 
upon  favorites  and  mistresses.  He  tired  the  nation  with  an 
excessive  Protestant  orthodoxy.  And  in  foreign  affairs  he  re- 
versed the  far-sighted  policy  of  iiis  predecessor  by  allying  himself 
with  Austria  and  reducing  Prussia  to  a  secondary  place  among 
the  German  states.  In  August,  1791,  Frederick  William  II 
joined  with  the  Emperor  Leopold  in  issuing  the  pubhc  Declara- 
tion of  Piiinitz,  to  the  effect  that  the  two  rulers  considered  the 
restoration  of  order  and  of  monarchy  in  France  an  object  of 
"  common  interest  to  all  sovereigns  of  Europe."  The  declaration 
was  hardly  more  than  pompous  bluster,  for  the  armies  of  the 
German  allies  were  not  as  yet  ready  for  war,  but  its  solemn 
expression  of  an  intention  on  the  part  of  foreign  despots  to  inter- 
fere in  the  internal  affairs  of  France  aroused  the  most  bitter 
feeling  among  Frenchmen  who  were  patriotic  as  well  as  revolu- 
tionary. 

The  prospect  of  war  with  the  blustering  monarchs  of  Austria 
and  Prussia  was  quite  welcome  to  several  important  factions  in 
France.  Marie  Antoinette  and  her  court  clique  gradually  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  their  reactionary  cause  would  be  abetted 
by  war.       If  the  allies  won,  absolutism  would  be  restored  in 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  497 

France  by  force  of  arms.     If  llie  French  won,  it  would  redound 
to  the  prestige  of  the  royal  family  and  enable  them  by  constitu- 
tional means  to  recover  their  authority.     Then,  too, 
the  constitutionalists,  the  bourgeois  [)arty  which  was  po'^i",^cs 
led  by  Lafayette  and  which  loyally  supported  the  set-  under  the 
/  tlement  of  1791,  worked  for  war.     Military  success  Mona^rchy 
would  consolidate  the  French  people  and  confirm  the  Favorable 
I  constitution,  and  Lafayette  aspired  to  win  personal  war"*^^'^" 
I  glory  as   the  omnipotent  commander.     Finally,  the 
I  overwhelming  majority  of  radicals  cried  for  war :    to  them  it 
seemed  as  if  the  hberal  monarchy  would  be  completely  dis- 
comfited by  it  and  that  out  of  it  would  emerge  a  republic  in 
France  and   the   general   triumph  of   democratic  principles  in 
Europe.     Why  not  stir  up  all  the  European  peoples  against  their 
monarchs?     The  cause  of  France  should  be  the  cause  of  Europe. 
France  should  be  the  missionary  of  the  new  dispensation. 

The  Legislative  Assembly,   on  which   depended  in  last  in- 
stance the  solution  of  all  these  vital  problems,  domestic  and 
foreign,  represented  several  diverse  shades  of  political 
opinion.     Of    the    seven    hundred    members,     four  par^e^ 
hundred   admitted  no   special   leadership   but  voted  in  the 
independently  on  every  question  according  to  individ-  Assenfbiy^ 
j  ual  preference  or  fear,  while  the  others  were  divided 
'  between   the  camp  of  Feiiillants  and   that  of  Jacobins.     The 
Feuillants  were  the  constitutionalists,  inclined,  while  in  general 
consistently  championing  the  settlement  of  1791,  to  strengthen 
the  royal  power,  —  they  were  the  conservatives  of  the  Assembly. 
The  Jacobins,  on  the  other  hand,  deriving  their  common  name 
from  the  famous  club  in   Paris,  were   the   radicals :    many  of 
them  secretly  cherished  republican  sentiments,  and  all  of  them 
desired   a  further  diminution  of   the  constitutional  powers  of 
,  Louis  XVI.     The  Jacobins,   however,   were  divided  into   two 
I  groups  on  the  question  of  how  the  royal  power  should  be  re- 
duced.    The  larger  number,  whose  most  conspicuous  members 
came  from  the  department  of  the  Gironde  and  were,  therefore, 
collectively  designated  as  Girondists,  entertained  the  idea  that 
the  existing  government  should  be  clearly  proved  futile  before 
proceeding  to  the  next  stage  in  the  Revolution :   they  clamored 
for  foreign  war  as  the  most  effective  means  of  disgracing  the 


498  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

existing  monarchy.  The  smaller  number  of  Jacobins,  drawn 
largely  from  Paris,  desired  to  take  no  chances  on  the  outcome 
of  war  but  advocated  the  radical  reformation  of  monarchical 
institutions  by  direct  and  immediate  popular  action :  subse- 
quently tliis  small  group  was  dubbed  the  Mountain  ^  from  the 
high  seats  its  members  later  occupied  in  the  Convention :  they 
represented  the  general  views  of  such  men  as  Marat,  Danton, 
and  Robespierre. 

Of  the  various  parties  or  groups  in  the  Legislative  Assembly, 
the  best  organized  was  the  Girondist.  Its  members,  recruited 
The  chiefly  from  the  provinces,  were  young,  enthusiastic, 

Girondists  g^j-^^]  filled  with  noble,  if  somewhat  unpractical,  ideas 
borrowed  from  the  ancient  republics  of  Greece  and  Rome. 
They  were  cultured,  eloquent,  and  patriotic.  In  Brissot  (1754- 
1793),  a  Parisian  lawyer,  they  had  an  admirable  leader  and  or- 
ganizer. In  Vergniaud  (i 753-1 793),  they  had  a  polished  and 
convincing  orator.  In  Condorcet  (i  743-1 794),  they  had  a 
brilhant  scholar  and  philosopher.  In  Dumouriez  (i 739-1823), 
they  possessed  a  mihtary  genius  of  the  first  order.  And  in  the 
refined  home  of  the  brilliant  Madame  Roland  (i 754-1 793), 
they  had  a  charming  center  for  political  discussion. 

In  internal  affairs  the  Legislative  Assembly  accomphshed  next 
to  nothing.  Everything  was  subordinated  to  the  question  of 
foreign  war.  In  that,  Feuillants  and  Girondists  found  them- 
selves in  strange  agreement.  Only  Marat  and  Robespierre 
raised  their  voices  against  a  policy  whose  pursuit  they  dreaded 
would  raise  a  military  dictator.  Marat  expressed  his  alarms  in 
the  Friend  of  tlie  People:  "What  afflicts  the  friends  of  liberty 
is  that  we  have  more  to  fear  from  success  than  from  defeat 
.  .  .  the  danger  is  lest  one  of  our  generals  be  crowned  with 
victory  and  lest  ...  he  lead  his  victorious  army  against  the 
capital  to  secure  the  triumph  of  the  Despot."  But  the  counsels 
of  extreme  radicals  were  unavaihng. 
/  In  the  excitement  the  Girondists  obtained  control  of  the 
government  and  demanded  of  the  emperor  that  the  Austrian 
troops  be  withdrawn  from  the  frontier  and  that  the  emigres  be 
expelled  from  his  territories.  As  no  action  was  taken  by  the 
'   emperor,  the  Girondist  ministers  prevailed  upon  Louis  XVI  to 

^  This  name  did  not  come  into  general  use  until  1793. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  499 

declare  war  on   20  April,   1792.     Lafayette  assumed   supreme 
command,  and  the  French  prepared  for  the  struggle.     Although 
Leopold  had  just  died,  his  policy  was  followed  by  his  Declaration 
son  and  successor,  the  Emperor  Francis  II.     Francis  of  War 
and  Frederick  William  II  of  Prussia  speedily  collected  aITs^I 
an  army  of  80,000  men  at  Coblenz  with  which  to  and  Prussia, 
invade  France.     The  campaign  of  1792  was  the  first  ^^'^^'  ^^^^ 
stage  in  a  vast  conflict  which  was  destined  to  rage  throughout 
Europe  for  twenty-three  years.     It  was  the  beginning  of  the 
contest  between  the  forces  of  revolution  and  those  of  reaction. 

Enthusiasm  was  with  the  French.  They  felt  they  were  fight- 
ing for  a  cause  —  the  cause  of  hberty,  equaHty,  and  nationahsm. 
Men  put  on  red  Uberty  caps,  and  such  as  possessed  no  firearms 
equipped  themselves  with  pikes  and  hastened  to  the  front. 
Troops  coming  up  from  Marseilles  sang  in  Paris  a  new  hymn  of 
freedom  which  Rouget  de  Lisle  had  just  composed  at  Strassburg 
for  the  French  soldiers,  —  the  inspiring  Marseillaise  that  was  to 
become  the  national  anthem  of  France.  But  enthusiasm  was 
about  the  only  asset  that  the  French  possessed.  Their  armies 
were  ill-organized  and  ill-disciplined.  Provisions  were  scarce, 
arms  were  inferior,  and  fortified  places  in  poor  repair.  Lafayette 
had  greater  ambition  than  ability. 

The  war  opened,  therefore,  with  a  series  of  French  reverses. 
An  attempted  invasion  of  the  Austrian  Netherlands  ended  in 
dismal   failure.     On   the   eastern  frontier   the   allied  ^^^^ 
armies   under    the    duke   of   Brunswick   experienced  French 
little  difficulty  in  opening  up  a  Hne  of  march  to  Paris.   ^^^®''^®^ 
Intense  grew  the  excitement  in  the  French  capital.     The  re- 
verses gave  color  to  the  suspicion  that  the  royal  family  were 
betraying  miHtary  plans  to  the  enemy.     A  big  demonstration 
took  place  on  20  June :    a  crowd  of  market  women, 
artisans,  coal  heavers,  and  hod  carriers  pushed  through  poshion 
the  royal  residence,  jostling  and  threatening  the  king  of  the 
and  queen :   no  \dolence  was  done  but  the  temper  of  pamiiy 
the    Parisian    proletariat    was    quite    evident.     But 
Louis  and  Marie  Antoinette  simply  would  not  learn  their  lesson. 
Despite  repeated  and  solemn  assurances  to  the  contrary,  they 
were  really  in  constant  secret  communication  with  the  invading 
forces.     The  king  was  beseeching  aid  from  foreign  rulers  in 


500  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

order  to  crush  his  own  people ;  the  queen  was  supplying  the 
generals  of  the  allies  with  the  French  plans  of  campaign.  Limited 
monarchy  failed  in  the  stress  of  war. 

ESTABLISHMENT   OF    THE   FIRST   FRENCH  REPUBLIC:   THE 
NATIONAL   CONVENTION,    1792-1795 

On  25  July,  1792,  the  duke  of  Brunswick  (1735-1806),  the 
pig-headed  commander-in-chief  of  the  allied  armies,  issued  a 
Prociama-  proclamation  to  the  French  people.  He  declared  it 
tion  of  the  his  purpose  "  to  put  an  end  to  the  anarchy  in  the  in-  / 
Brunswick  terior  of  France,  to  check  the  attacks  upon  the  throne 
25  July,  and  the  altar,  to  reestablish  the  legal  power,  to  restore 
^^^^  to  the  king  the  security  and  hberty  of  which  he  is 

now  deprived  and  to  place  him  in  a  position  to  exercise  once 
more  the  legitimate  authority  which  belongs  to  him."  The 
bold  duke  went  on  to  declare  that  French  soldiers  who  might 
be  captured  "shall  be  treated  as  enemies  and  punished  as  rebels 
to  their  king  and  as  disturbers  of  the  public  peace,"  and  that, 
if  the  slightest  harm  befell  any  member  of  the  royal  family,  his 
Austrian  and  Prussian  troops  would  "inflict  an  ever-memorable 
vengeance  by  delivering  over  the  city  of  Paris  to  military  execu- 
tion and  complete  destruction,  and  the  rebels  guilty  of  such 
outrages  to  the  punishment  that  they  merit."  This  fooHsh  I 
and  insolent  manifesto  sealed  the  fate  of  the  French  monarchy. 
It  was  the  clearest  proof  that  French  royalty  and  foreign  armies 
were  in  formal  alliance  not  only  to  prevent  the  further  develop- 
The  French  ii'^^nt  of  the  Revolution  but  also  to  undo  what  had 
Reply:  the  already  been  done.  And  all  patriotically  minded 
tion^of^o-io  Frenchmen,  whether  hitherto  they  had  sympathized 
August,  with  the  course  of  events  or  not,  now  grew  furious  at 
^^^^  the  threats  of  foreigners  to  interfere  in  the  internal 

affairs  of  their  country.     The  French  reply  to  the  duke  of  Bruns- 
Suspension     wick  was  the  insurrection  of  9-10  August,  1792. 
of  the  On  those  days   the  proletariat  of  Paris  revolted 

FaU^of"  against  the  liberal  monarchy.  They  supplanted  the 
Limited  bourgeois  commuuc  with  a  radically  revolutionary 
Monarchy  commune,  in  which  Danton  became  the  leading  figure. 
They  invaded  the  royal  palace,  massacred  the  Swiss  Guards,  and 


''LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  501 

obliged  the  king  and  his  family  to  flee  for  their  lives  to  the 
Assembly.  On  10  August,  a  remnant  of  terror-stricken  deputies 
voted  to  suspend  the  king  from  his  ofiice  and  to  authorize  the 
immediate  election  by  universal  manhood  suffrage  of  a  National 
Convention  that  would  prepare  a  new  constitution  for  France. 

From  the  suspension  of  the  king  on  10  August  to  the  assem- 
bhng  of  the  National  Convention  on  21  September,  France  was 
practically  anarchical.  The  royal  family  was  in-  Anarchy 
^  carcerated  in  the  gloomy  prison  of  the  Temple.  The  ^°^  France 
1  regular  governmental  agents  were  paralyzed.  Lafayette  pro- 
i  tested  against  the  insurrection  at  Paris  and  surrendered  himself 
jto  the  allies. 

Still  the  allies  advanced  into  France.  Fear  deepened  into 
panic.  Supreme  control  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  revolutionary 
commune :  Danton  became  virtual  dictator.  His  policy  was 
simple.  The  one  path  of  safety  left  open  to  the  radicals  was 
to  strike  terror  into  the  hearts  of  their  domestic  and  foreign 
foes.  "In  my  opinion,"  said  Danton,  "the  way  to  stop  the 
enemy  is  to  terrify  the  royalists.  Audacity,  more  audacity, 
and  always  greater  audacity!"  The  news  of  the  investment 
of  Verdun  by  the  allies,  published  at  Paris  on  2  September,  was 
the  signal  for  the  beginning  of  a  wholesale  massacre  of  royalists 
in  the  French  capital.  For  five  long  days  unfortunate  royalists 
were  taken  from  the  prisons  and  handed  over  by  a  self-con- 
stituted judicial  body  to  the  tender  mercies  of  a  band  of  hired 
cutthroats.  Slight  discrimination  was  made  of  rank,  sex,  or 
age.  Men,  women,  and  children,  nobles  and  magistrates, 
priests  and  bishops,  —  all  who  were  suspected  of  royalist  sym- 
pathy were  butchered.  The  number  of  victims  of  these  Sep- 
tember massacres  has  been  variously  estimated  from  2000  to 
10,000. 

Meanwhile  Danton  was  infusing  new  Kfe  and  new  spirit  into 
the  French  armies.  Dumouriez  replaced  Lafayette  in  supreme 
command.  And  on  20  September  the  alhes  received  their  first 
check  at  Valmy. 

The  very  day  on  which  news  reached  Paris  that  it  Y^™r 

1  1      1  -r^  .   1  •  .the  First 

was  saved  and  that  Brunswick  was  m  retreat,  the  Military 
National  Convention  met.     Amid  the  wildest  enthu-  Success  of 

I'll      ^"^  Revo- 

siasm,  it  unanimously  decreed     that  royalty  is  abol-  lutionaries 


502  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Prociama-      ished  in  France."     Then  it  was  resolved  to  date  from 

Fkst°  *  ^      2^  September,  1792,  Year  I  of  the  Repubhc.     A  decree 

French  of   perpetual   banishment   was   enacted   against  the 

^^"    ^        emigres  and  it  was  soon  determined  to  bring  the  king 

to  trial  before  the  Convention. 

The    National    Convention    remained    in    session    for   three 

years    (i  792-1 795),     and    its    work    constituted    the    second 

great   phase   of    the    Revolution.     This   work   was   essentially 

twofold :    (i)  It  secured  a  series  of  great  victories  in 

National        the   foreign   war,    thereby  rendering  permanent   the 

Convention,    remarkable  social  reforms  of  the  first  period  of  the 
1792-1795  . 

Revolution,  that  between  1789  and  1791  ;   and  (2)  it 

constructed  a  republican  form  of  government,   based  on  the 

principle  of  democracy. 

Perhaps  no  legislative  body  in  history  has  been  called  upon 
to  solve  such  knotty  problems  as  those  which  confronted  the 
National  Convention  at  the  opening  of  its  sessions. 
Confront^  ^^  that  time  it  was  necessary  (i)  to  decide  what 
ingthe  sliould   be   done  with   the   deposed   and  imprisoned 

Convention  ^^^S !  (2)  to  organize  the  national  defense  and  turn 
back  foreign  invasion ;  (3)  to  suppress  insurrection 
within  France ;  (4)  to  provide  a  strong  government  for  the 
country;  (5)  to  complete  and  consohdate  the  social  reforms  of 
the  earlier  stage  of  the  Revcrlution ;  and  (6)  to  frame  a  new 
constitution  and  to  estabhsh  permanent  repubhcan  institutions. 
With  all  these  questions  the  Convention  coped  with  infinite 
industry  and  much  success.  And  in  the  few  following  pages, 
we  shall  review  them  in  the  order  indicated,  although  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  most  of  them  were  considered  by  the 
Convention  simultaneously. 

Before  taking  up  the  work  of  the  Convention,  a  word  should 

be  said  about  the  personnel  of  that  body.     The  elections  had 

been  in  theory  by  almost  universal  suffrage,  but  in 

Personnel  .  .     ,./.       -^  .      .     .  ,      .  7         1       1 

of  the  practice    mdmerence    or    intimidation    reduced    the 

National        actual  votcrs  to  about  a  tenth  of  the  total  electorate. 

Convention  ,     ,     .  • 

The  result  was  the  return  of  an  overwhelming  major- 
ity of  radicals,  who,  while  agreeing  on  the  fundamental  repub- 
lican doctrines,  nevertheless  differed  about  details.  On  the 
right  of   the   Convention  sat  nearly  two  hundred  Girondists, 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  503 

including   Brissot,    Vergniaud,   Condorcet,  and  the  interesting 
Thomas  Paine.     These  men  represented  largely  the  well-to-do 
bourgeoisie  who  were  more  radical  in  thought  than  The 
in  deed,  who  ardently  desired  a  democratic  republic,   Girondists 
but  who  at  the  same  time  distrusted  Paris  and  the  proletariat. 
In  the  raised  seats  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Convention  sat 
nearly  one  hundred  members  of  the  Mountain,  now  jj^g 
exclusively  designated   as  Jacobins  —  extreme   radi-  Mountain- 
cals    in    thought,    word,    and    deed  —  disciples    of 
Rousseau  —  counting    among    their    number    Danton,    Robes- 
pierre,  Camot,   and   St.   Just.     Between   the  two   factions  of 
Mountainists  and  Girondists  sat  the  Plain,  as  it  was  ^^^  pj^^ 
called,  the  real  majority  of  the  house,  which  had  no 
I    policies  or  convictions  of  its  own,  but  voted  usually  according 
to   the  dictates  of  expediency.     Our   tactful,   trimming  Abbe 
1   Sieyes  belonged  to  the  Plain.     At  the  very  outset  the  Plain 
I  was  likely  to  go  with  the  Girondists,  but  as  time  went  on  and 
1  the  Parisian  populace  clamored  more  and  more  loudly  against 
any  one  who  opposed  the  action  of  their  allies,  the  Mountainists, 
it  gradually  saw  fit  to  transfer  its  affections  to  the  Left. 

The  first  serious  question  which  faced  the  Convention  was  the 
disposition  of  the  king.     The  discovery  of  an  iron  chest  con- 
taining accounts  of  expenditures  for  bribing  members 
of  the  National  Constituent  Assembly,  coupled  with  Execution 
the   all   but   confirmed   suspicion    of    Louis'    double  of  King 
dealings  with  France  and  with  foreign  foes,^  sealed  j^^^J 
the  doom  of  that  miserably  w^ak  monarch.     He  was 
j  brought  to  trial  before  the  Convention  in  December,  1792,  and 
i  condemned  to  death  by  a  vote  of  387  to  334.     With  the  majority 
\  voted  the  king's  own  cousin,  the  duke  of  Orleans,  an  enthusiastic 
radical  who  had  assumed  the  name  of  Citizen  Phihppe  figalite 
(Equality).     On  21  January,   1793,  Louis  XVI  was  beheaded 
near    the    overthrown    statue    of    his    voluptuous    predecessor 
Louis  XV  in  the  Place  de  la  Revolution  (now  called  the  Place 
de  la  Concorde).     The  unruffled  dignity  with  which  he  met 
death  was  the  finest  act  of  his  reign. 

1  After  the  execution  of  the  king,  actual  letters  were  discovered  which  Louis 
had  dispatched  to  his  fellow  monarchs,  urging  their  assistance.  A  typical  extract 
is  given  in  Robinson  and  Beard,  Readings  in  Modern  European  History,  Vol.  I, 
pp.  287-288. 


504  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Meanwhile  the  tide  of  Austrian  and  Prussian  invasion  had 
been  rolling  away  from  France.  After  Valmy,  Dumouriez 
Military  had  pursued  the  retreating  foreigners  across  the 
Successes  Rhine  and  had  carried  the  war  into  the  Austrian 
Netherlands,  where  a  large  party  regarded  the  French  as  de- 
Hverers.  Dumouriez  entered  Brussels  without  serious  resistance, 
and  was  speedily  master  of  the  whole  country.  It  seemed  as 
though  the  French  would  have  an  easy  task  in  delivering  the 
peoples  of  Europe  from  their  old  regime. 

Emboldened  by  the  ease  with  which  its  armies  were  over- 
running the  neighboring  states,  the  National  Convention  pro- 
posed to  propagate  liberty  and  reform  throughout 
Champion  Europe  and  in  December,  1792,  issued  the  following 
of  Revo-        significant    decree:     "The    French    nation    declares 

lution  1  •  -11  •  11 

that  it  will  treat  as  enemies  every  people  who,  re- 
fusing hberty  and  equality  or  renouncing  them,  may  wish  to 
maintain,  recall,  or  treat  with  a  prince  and  the  privileged  classes ; 
on  the  other  hand,  it  engages  not  to  subscribe  to  any  treaty 
and  not  to  lay  down  its  arms  until  the  sovereignty  and  inde- 
pendence of  the  people  whose  territory  the  troops  of  the  repubhc 
shall  have  entered  shall  be  established,  and  until  the  people 
shall  have  adopted  the  principles  of  equality  and  founded  a  free 
and  democratic  government." 

In  thus  throwing  down  the  gauntlet  to  all  the  monarchs  of 
Europe  and  in  putting  the  issue  clearly  between  democracy  and 
Foreign  the  old  regime,  the  French  revolutionaries  took  a  dan- 
Fears  gerous  step.  Although  a  large  number  of  the  neigh- 
boring peoples  undoubtedly  sympathized  with  the  aims  and 
achievements  of  the  Revolution,  the  rulers  and  privileged  classes 
in  more  distant  countries,  such  as  Russia,  Austria,  Prussia,  and 
even  Spain  and  Great  Britain,  were  still  deeply  intrenched 
in  the  patriotism  and  unquestioning  loyalty  of  their  people. 

Then,  too,  the  execution  of  Louis  XVI  in  January, 
Coaiition'^^'  ^TQSj  increased  the  bitterness  of  the  approaching 
against  grave  struggle.     A  royalist  reaction  in  France  itself 

1793^^  precipitated  civil  war  in  La  Vendee.     Dumouriez,  the 

ablest  general  of  the  day,  in  disgust  deserted  to  the 
Austrians.  And  at  this  very  time,  a  formidable  coahtion  of 
frightened  and  revengeful  monarchs  was  formed  to  overthrow  the 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  505 

French  Republic.     To  Austria  and  Prussia,  already  in  the  field, 
were  added  Great  Britain,  Holland,  Spain,  and  Sardinia. 

Once  more  France  was  placed  on  the  defensive.     Once  more 
the  allies  occupied  Belgium  and  the  Rhine  provinces,  and  took 
the  roads  toward  Paris.     The  situation  in  the  spring 
of  1793  appeared  as  critical  as  that  in  the  preceding  Endeavors 
summer.     But  as  the  event  proved,  the  republic  was  of  the 
a   far   more   effective   government   than    the   hberal  tionaries 
monarchy.     Revolutionary  France  now  went  gladly 
to  war,  singing  the  IVIarseillaise  and  displaying  the  banners  of 
"Liberty,  Equahty,  and  Fraternity."     Bourgeois  citizens,  whose 
social  and  financial  gains  in  the  earlier  stage  of  the  Revolution 
would  be  threatened  by  the  triumph  of  the  foreign  forces,  now 
gave  money  and  brains  to  the  national  defense.     Artisans  and 
peasants,  who  had  won  something  and  hoped  to  win  more  from 
the  success  of  the  Revolution,  now  laid  down  their  lives  for  the 
cause.     Heroism  and  devotion  to  a  great  ideal  inspired  the  raw 
recruits  that  were  rushed  to  the  front. 

But  it  was  not  enthusiasm  alone  that  saved  France.  It  was 
the  splendid  organization  of  that  enthusiasm  by  an  efficient 
central  government  at  Paris.  In  Carnot  (i 753-1823) 
the-  National  Convention  possessed  a  mihtary  and 
administrative  genius  of  the  first  order.  Of  honorable  and 
upright  character,  fearless,  patriotic,  and  practical,  Carnot 
plunged  into  the  work  of  organizing  the  republican  armies. 
His  labors  were  incessant.  He  prepared  the  plans  of  campaign 
and  the  reports  that  were  submitted  to  the  Convention.  He 
raised  volunteers  and  drafted  militia,  drilled  them,  and  hurried 
them  to  the  frontiers.  With  the  aid  of  Robert  Lindet  (1749- 
1825),  the  able  finance  minister,  he  found  means  of  feeding, 
clothing,  and  arming  the  host  of  soldiers.  He  personally  visited 
the  armies  and  by  word  and  precept  infused  them  with  energy 
and  determination.  For  the  first  time  in  modern  history  a 
nation  was  truly  in  arms. 

The  work  of  Carnot  was  supplemented  by  the  labors  of  the 
"deputies  on  mission,"  radical  members  of  the  Convention  who 
were  detailed  to  watch  the  generalship  and  move-  The  New 
ments  of  the  various  French  armies,  endowed  with  Generals 
power  to  send  any  suspected  or  unsuccessful  commander  to 


5o6  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  guillotine  and  charged  with  keeping  the  central  government 
constantly    informed    of    military    affairs.     Gradually,    a    new 
,    group  of  brilliant  young  republican  generals  appeared,  among 
I  whom  the  steadfast  Moreau   (i  763-1813),   the  stern  Pichegru 
^  (1761-1804),  and  the  gallant  Jourdan  (1762-1833)  stood  pre- 
eminent. 

In  this  way  France  met  the  monster  coalition  which  would 
have  staggered  a  Louis  XIV.  The  country  was  cleared  of 
French  foreign  enemies.     The  war  was  pressed  in  the  Nether- 

Successes  lands,  along  the  Rhine,  in  Savoy,  and  across  the 
Pyrenees.  So  successful  were  the  French  that  Carnot's  popular 
title  of  "organizer  of  defense"  was  justly  magnified  to  that  of 
"organizer  of  victory."  Of  course  it  is  impossible  in  our  limited 
survey  to  do  justice  to  these  wonderful  campaigns  of  1794  and 
1795.  It  will  suffice  to  point  out  that  when  the  National  Con- 
vention finally  adjourned  in  1795,  the  First  Coalition 
o/the  "^  was  in  reality  dissolved.  The  pitiful  Charles  IV  of 
First  Spain  humbled  himself  to  contract  a  close  alHance 

179s'  ^°"'  with  the  republic  which  had  put  his  Bourbon  cousin 
to  death.  By  the  separate  treaty  of  Basel  (1795), 
Prussia  gave  France  a  free  hand  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rhine 
and  turned  her  attention  to  securing  compensation  at  the 
expense  of  Poland.  William  V,  the  Orange  stadholder  of  Hol- 
land, was  deposed  and  his  country  transformed  into  the  Bata- 
vian  Republic,  allied  with  France.  French  troops  were  in  full 
possession  of  the  Austrian  Netherlands  and  all  other  territories 
up  to  the  Rhine.  The  life-long  ambition  of  Louis  XIV  appeared 
to  have  been  realized  by  the  new  France  in  two  brief  years. 
Only  Great  Britain,  Austria,  and  Sardinia  remained  in  arms 
against  the  republic. 

The  foreign  successes  of  the  republic  seem  all  the  more  won- 
derful when  it  is  remembered  that  at  the  same  time  serious 
revolts  had  to  be  suppressed  within  France.  Opposi- 
sion^or'  t^o^  ^o  Carnot's  drafting  of  soldiers  was  utilized  by 
Domestic  reactionary  agitators  to  stir  up  an  insurrection  of  the 
tion""^'^  peasants  in  La  Vendee  in  order  to  restore  the  mon- 
archy and  to  reestablish  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
Provincial  and  bourgeois  dislike  of  the  radicalism  of  the  Parisian 
proletariat  caused  riots  and  outbreaks  in  such  important  and 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  507 

widely  separated  cities  as  Lyons,  Marseilles,  and  Bordeaux. 
With  the  same  devotion  and  thoroughness  that  had  character- 
ized their  foreign  policy,  but  with  greater  sternness,  the  officials 
of  the  National  Convention  stamped  out  all  these  riots  and 
insurrections.  By  1795  all  France,  except  only  the  emigres 
and  secret  conspirators,  had  more  or  less  graciously  accepted  the 
republic. 

The  true  explanation  of  these  marvelous  achievements, 
whether  at  home  or  abroad,  lies  in  the  strong  central  govern- 
ment which  the  National  Convention  estabhshed  and  in  the 
policy  of  terrorism  which  that  government  pursued. 

In  the  spring  of  1793  the  National  Convention  intrusted  the 
supreme  executive  authority  of  France  to  a  special  committee, 
composed  of  nine  (later  twelve)  of  its  members,  who 
were  styled  the  Committee  of  Pubhc  Safety.     This  committee 
small  body,  which  included  such  Jacobin  leaders  as  cf^^^ 
Carnot,   Robespierre,   and  St.  Just,  acting  secretly, 
directed   the  ministers  of  state,   appointed  the  local  officials, 
and  undertook  the  administration  of  the  whole  country.     Mani- 
fold were  the  duties  it  was  called  upon  to  discharge.     Among 
other  problems,  it  must  conduct  the  foreign  relations,  super- 
vise' the  armies,  and  secure  the  active  support  of  the  French 
people.     Diligently  and   effectively  did  it  apply  itself   to  its 
various  activities. 

Terrorism  has  been  the  word  usually  employed  to  describe 
the  internal  poHcy  of  the  Committee  of  Pubhc  Safety,  and  the 
"Reign  of  Terror,"   the  period  of  the  Committee's  ^^^ 
chief  work,  from  the  summer  of  1793  to  that  of  1794.  "Terror" 
So  sensational  and  so  sanguinary  was  the  period  that  l^^'^^'g^ 
many  writers  have  been  prone  to  make  it  the  very 
center  of  the  Revolution  and  to  picture  "Hberty,  equality,  and 
fraternity"  as  submerged  in  a  veritable  sea  of  blood.     As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  the  Reign  of  Terror  was  but  an  in- 
cident,   though   obviously   an   inevitable   incident,   in   a   great 
Revolution.     Nor  may  the  French  people  be  justly  accused  of  a 
peculiarly  bloodthirsty  disposition.     Given    the    same  circum- 
stances, it  is  doubtful  whether  similar  scenes  would  not  have 
been   enacted   at    Vienna,    BerKn,    Madrid,    or    even    London. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  great  principles  and  far-reaching 


5o8  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

reforms  were  endangered  by  a  host  of  foreign  and  domestic 
enemies.  It  seemed  to  the  republican  leaders  that  the  occasion 
demanded  complete  unanimity  in  France.  A  divided  nation 
could  not  triumph  over  united  Europe.  The  only  way  in  which 
France  could  present  a  united  front  to  the  world  was  by  striking 
terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  opponents  of  the  new  regime.  And 
terror  involved  bloodshed. 

The  chief  allies  of  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety  in  conduct- 
ing terrorism  were  the  Committee  of  General  Security  and  the 
Revolutionary  Tribunal.  The  former  was  given  police  power 
in  order  to  maintain  order  throughout  the  country.  The  latter 
was  charged  with  trying  and  condemning  any  person  suspected 
of  disloyalty  to  the  repubhc.  Both  were  responsible  to  the 
Committee  of  Public  Safety.  A  decree  of  the  Convention, 
called  the  Law  of  Suspects,  proclaimed  as  liable  to  arbitrary 
arrest  every  person  who  was  of  noble  birth,  or  had  held  office 
before  the  Revolution,  or  had  any  relation  with  an  emigre, 
or  could  not  produce  a  signed  certificate  of  citizenship. 

With  such  instruments  of  despotism  France  became  revolu- 
tionary  by   strokes   of    the   guillotine.^     It   is   estimated   that 
I  about  2500  persons  were  executed  at  Paris  during  the  Reign  of 
'  Terror.     Among    others    Marie    Antoinette,    Philippe    Egalite, 
and  Madame  Roland  suffered  death. 

The  Terror  spread  to  the  provinces.     Local  tribunals  were 
r  everywhere  established  to  search  out  and  condemn  suspected 
1  persons.     The   city   of   Lyons,    which   ventured    to    resist    the 
revolutionary  government,  was  partially  demoHshed  and  hun- 
dreds  of   its  citizens  were   put  to  death.     At   Nantes,  where 
echoes  of  the  Vendee  insurrection  were  long  heard,  the  brutal 
!  Jacobin  deputy  Carrier  loaded  unhappy  victims  on  old  hulks 
'  which  were  towed  out  into  the  Loire  and  sunk.     The  total 
number  of  those  who  perished  in  the  provinces  is  unknown,  but 
it  may  have  reached  ten  thousand. 

When  the  total  loss  of  life  by  means  of  revolutionary  tribunals 

'  The  guillotine,  which  is  still  used  in  France,  consists  of  two  upright  posts 
between  which  a  heavy  knife  rises  and  falls.  The  criminal  is  stretched  upon  a 
board  and  then  pushed  between  the  posts.  The  knife  falls  and  instantly  beheads 
him.  The  device  was  invented  by  a  certain  philanthropic  Dr.  Guillotine,  who 
wished  to  substittite  in  capjital  punishment  an  instrument  sure  to  produce  instant 
death  in  the  place  of  the  bungling  process  of  beheading  with  an  ax.     (Mathews.) 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  509 

is  calculated,  it  will  certainly  be  found  to  bear  slight  comparison 
with  the  enormous  sacrifice  of  life  which  any  one  of  the  numerous 
great  wars  of  the  nineteenth  century  has  entailed.  The  chief 
wonder  about  the  Reign  of  Terror  is  that  its  champions  and 
supporters,  who  had  so  much  at  stake,  did  not  do  worse  things. 
A  more  calamitous  phase  of  the  Terror  than  the  slaughter  of 
royahsts  and  reactionaries  was  the  wretched  quarreling  among 
/  various  factions  of  the  radicals  and  the  destruction  ^    . 

Factions 
of  one  for  the  benefit  of  another.      Ihus.  the  efforts  among  the 

of  the  Girondists  to  stay  the  execution  of  the  king  ^^voiu- 

,  ,  .  .  ,  .   ,  tionanes 

and  to  appeal  to  the  provinces  agamst  the  violence 
in  Paris,  coupled  wdth  the  treason  of  Dumouriez,  seemed  to 
the  Parisian  proletariat  to  mark  the  alliance  of  the  Girondists 
with  the  reactionaries.  Accordingly,  the  workingmen  of  Paris, 
under  the  leadership  of  Marat,  revolted  on  31  May,  1793,  and 
two  days  later  obhged  the  Convention  to  expel  twenty-nine 
Girondist  members.  Of  these,  the  chief,  including  Brissot  and 
Vergniaud,  w^re  brought  to  the  guillotine  in  October,  1793. 
Next,  the  leaders  of  the  commune  of  Paris,  who  had  gone  to 
such  extreme  lengths  as  to  suppress  the  Christian  churches  in 
that  city  and  to  proclaim  atheism,  were  dispatched  in  March, 
1794,  by  a  coalition  of  the  followers  of  Danton  and  Robespierre. 
Then  in  April,  when  Danton  at  length  wearied  of  the  Terror 
I  and  counseled  moderation,  that  redoubtable  genius,  together 
I  with  his  friend,  Camille  Desmoulins,  was  guillotined.  Finally, 
i  Robespierre  himself,  after  enjoying  a  brief  dictatorship,  during 
which  time  he  vainly  endeavored  to  put  in  practice  the  theories 
of  Rousseau,  w-as  sent,  in  company  with  St.  Just,  to  the  guillotine 
by  the  more  conservative  members  of  the  National  Convention 
in  July,  1794. 

The  death  of  Robespierre  ended  the  Reign  of  Terror.     The 
purpose  of  the  Terror,  however,  was  already  achieved.     The 
Revolution  was  preserved  in  France,  and  France  was  ^^^  ^f  ^Yle 
preserved  in  Europe.     The  Thermidorian  Reaction,  Terror: 
as  the  end  of  the  Terror  is  called,  left  the  National  dorian 
Convention   free   to  resume  its   task  of  devising  a  Reaction, 
permanent  republican  constitution  for  the  country.   ^^^"^ 
A  few  subsequent  attempts  were  made,  now  by  reactionaries, 
now  by  extreme  radicals,  to  interfere  with  the  work,  but  they 


5IO  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

were  suppressed  with  comparative  ease.  The  last  uprising 
of  the  Parisian  populace  which  threatened  the  Convention  was 
1  effectually  quelled  (October,  1795)  by  a  "whiff  of  grape-shot" 
discharged  at  the  command  of  a  young  and  obscure  captain  of 
artillery,  Napoleon  Bonaparte  by  name. 

In  the  midst  of  foreign  war  and  internal  dissension,  even  in 
the  midst  of  the  Terror,  the  National  Convention  found  time 
to  further  the  social  reforms  of  the  earlier  stage  of  the 
oAhe"^        Revolution.     Just  as  the  bourgeois  Constituent  As- 
National        sembly  destroyed  the  inequalities  arising  from  the 
i'792'-i705"'    privileges  of  the  "old  regime,"  so  the  popular  Con- 
vention sought  to  put  an  end  to  the  inequahties  aris- 
ing from  wealth.     Under  its  new  leaders,  the  Revolution  assumed 
j    for  a  time  a  distinctly  sociahstic  character.     The  property  of 
the  emigres  was  confiscated  for  the  benefit  of  the  state.     A  maxi- 
mum price  for  grain  was  set  by  law.     Large  estates  were  broken 
up  and  offered  for  sale  to  poorer  citizens  in  lots  of  two  or  three 
acres,  to  be  paid  for  in  small  annual  installments.     All  ground 
rents  were  abohshed  without  compensation  to  the  owners.     "The 
rich,"  said  Marat,  "have  so  long  sucked  out  the  marrow  of  the 
people  that  they  are  now  visited  with  a  crushing  retribution." 
Some   of   the   reforms   of   the   Convention   went    to    absurd 
I  lengths.     In  the  popular  passion  for  equality,  every  one  was 
\  to  be  called  "Citizen"  rather  than  "Monsieur."     The  oflicial 
record  of  the  expense  of  Marie  Antoinette's  funeral  was  the 
'    simple  entry,  "Five  francs  for  a  coffin  for  the  widow  of  Citizen 
'    Capet."     Ornate  clothing  disappeared  with  titles  of  nobility, 
and  the  silk  stockings  and  knee  breeches  (culottes),  which  had 
distinguished  the  privileged  classes  and  the  gentlemen,   were 
universally  supplanted  by  the  long  trousers  which  had  hitherto 
been  worn  only  by  the  lowest  class  of  workingmen  (sans-culottes) . 
1  To  do  away  with  the  remembrance  of  historic  Christianity,  the 
\  year  was  divided  anew  into  twelve  months,  each  containing  three 
weeks  of  ten  days  (decades),  every  tenth  day  (decadi)  being  for 
rest,  and  the  five  or  six  days  left  over  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
called  sans-culottides ,  were  national  holidays ;  the  names  of  the 
months  were  changed,  and  the  revolutionary  calendar  made  to 
date  from  the  establishment  of  the  repubhc,  22  September,  1792. 
Many  of   the  reforms  had   long  been  urgently  needed   and 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  511 

proved  to  be  of  permanent  value.  Such  was  the  establishment 
of  a  convenient  and  uniform  system  of  weights  and  measures, 
based  on  decimal,  reckoning,  the  so-called  metric  system,  which 
has  come  to  be  accepted  by  almost  all  civilized  nations  save  the 
Enghsh-speaking  peoples.  Such,  too,  was  the  elaborate  system 
of  state  education  which  the  philosopher  Condorcet  ^  prepared 
and  which,  though  more  pressing  questions  compelled  its  post- 
ponement, became  the  basis  on  which  the  modern  scheme  of 
free  public  instruction  has  been  built  up  in  France.  Such, 
moreover,  was  the  separation  of  Church  and  state,  effected  in 
September,  1794,  the  estabhshment  in  the  following  year  of 
liberty  of  worship,  and  the  restoration  of  the  churches  to  Chris- 
tian worship  on  condition  that  the  clergymen  submitted  to  the 
laws  of  the  state.  Such,  finally,  was  the  project  of  preparing  a 
single  comprehensive  code  of  law  for  the  whole  country.  Al- 
though the  legal  code  was  not  completed  until  the  dictatorship 
of  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  nevertheless  the  Convention  made  a 
beginning  and  incorporated  in  it  a  fundamental  principle  of 
inheritance  that  has  marked  modern  France  —  the  principle 
that  no  person  may  will  his  property  to  one  direct  heir  to  the 
exclusion  of  others  but  that  all  children  must  inherit  almost 
equally.  Moreover,  the  practice  of  imprisoning  men  for  debt 
was  abolished,  negro  slavery  was  ended,  and  woman's  claim 
on  property  was  protected  in  common  with  man's.  Finally 
the  new  republican  constitution  was  permeated  with  ideas  of 
political  democracy. 

After  the  downfall  of  Robespierre  (Thermidorian  Reaction), 
the  National  Convention  ceased  to  press  reforms  in  behalf  of 
the  proletariat  and  came  more  and  more  under  the  Eventual 
influence    of    the    moderate    well-to-do    bourgeoisie.  Bourgeois 
The  law  against  suspects  was  repealed  and  the  grain  ^f^^^^ 
laws   were   amended.     The   Revolutionary   Tribunal  National 
was  suppressed  and  the  name  of  the  Place  de  la  Revolu- 
tion was  changed  to  the  Place  de  la  Concorde.     The  death  in 
prison  of  the  young  and  only  son  of  Louis  XVI  in  1795  was  a 
severe  blow  to  the  hopes  of  the  royalists.     By   1795   France 
seemed  definitively  committed  to  a  repubhcan  form  of  govern- 
ment,  which,   however,   would   not  be   extremely   radical   but 

^  Marquis  de  Condorcet  (i  743-1 794). 


512  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

only  moderate,  being  now  founded  on  the  bourgeoisie  rather 
than  on  the  proletariat. 

THE    DIRECTORY    (1795-1799)    AND    THE    TRANSFORMATION 
OF   THE   REPUBLIC   INTO  A   MILITARY   DICTATORSHIP 

The  constitution  of    the  first    French  Republic  was  drawn 

up  by  the  National  Convention  during  the  last  year  of  its  session 

and  after  it  had  passed  under  bourgeois  influence. 

tion  of       I    This  constitution  which  went  into  effect  in  1795  and 

the  Year    |    is  known,  therefore,  as  the  Constitution  of  the  Year 

Constitution  HI  (^f  the  Republic),  intrusted  the  legislative  power 

of  the  First     to   two    chambers,   chosen    by   indirect  election,  — 

Republic        3,  lower  house  of  five  hundred  members,  to  propose 

laws,  and   a    Council  of   Ancients,   of    two  hundred 

and    fifty    members,    to    examine    and    enact    the    laws.      The 

I   bourgeois    distrust   of    the   lower    classes    showed    itself  again 

I  in    restricting    the    electorate   to    taxpayers  who  had    lived  at 

I  The  least  a  year  in  one  place.     The  executive  authority 

'   Directory       Qf  ^]^q  republic  was  vested  in  a  board  of  live  members, 

styled  Directors,   and  elected  by  t^he  legislature,   one  retiring 

every  year.     The  Board  of  Directors,  or  "Directory,"  was  to 

supervise  the  enforcement  of  laws  and  to  appoint  the  ministers 

of  state,  or  cabinet,  who  should  be  responsible  to  it. 

Thus,  as  the  National  Constituent  Assembly  had  framed  the 
constitution  for  the  liberal  monarchy,   so  the  National   Con- 
vention drafted  that  for  the  repubhc.     But  in  strength 
Duration        ^^^^  durability  the  republic  was  hardly  more  fortunate 
of  the  than  the  limited  monarchy.    Louis  XVI  reigned  as  con- 

1705-^1790      stitutional  king  under  the  document  of  179 1  less  than  a 
year.     The  Directory  governed  in  accordance  with  the 
constitution  of  the  Year  III  less  than  four  years  (i  795-1 799). 
The  failure  of  the  Directory  was  due  to  two  chief  causes : 
/    first,  the  prevalence  of  domestic  difficulties ;    and  second,  the 
'•    Weaknesses  ^^^^  ^^  military  power  and  the  appearance  of  a  vie- 
in  the  torious,  ambitious  general.     To  both  of  these  causes 
irec  ory       reference  must  be  made.     The  former  proved  that 
another  kind  of  government  was  needed  to  cope  with  the  situa- 
tion ;    the  latter  suggested  what  the  nature  of  the  new  govern- 
ment would  be. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  513 

To  consolidate  the  French  people  after  six  years  of  radical 
revolutionary  upheavals  required  hard  and  honest  labor  on 
the  part  of  men  of  distinct  genius.  Yet  the  Directors  were, 
almost  without  exception,  men  of  mediocre  talents,^  who  prac- 
ticed bribery  and  corruption  with  unblushing  effrontery.  They 
preferred  their  personal  gain  to  the  welfare  of  the  state. 

The  period  of  the  Directory  was  a  time  of  plots  and  intrigues. 
The  royalists  who  were  elected  in  large  numbers  to  the  As- 
semblies were  restrained  from  subverting  the  con-  pontjcai 
stitution  only  by  illegal  force  and  violence  on  the  part  and  Social 
of  the  Directors.  On  the  other  hand,  the  extremists  'ssensions 
in  Paris  found  a  warm-hearted  leader  in  a  certain  Babeuf  (1760- 
1797),  who  declared  that  the  Revolution  had  been  directed  prima- 
rily to  the  advantage  of  the  bourgeoisie,  that  the  proletarians, 
despite  their  toil  and  suft'ering  and  bloodshed,  were  still  just  as 
poorly  oft"  as  ever,  and  that  their  only  salvation  lay  in  a  com- 
pulsory equalization  of  wealth  and  the  abolition  of  poverty. 
An  insurrection  of  these  radicals  —  the  forerunners  of  modern 
Socialism  —  was  suppressed  and  Babeuf  was  put  to  death  in 

1797- _ 

While  sincere  radicals  and  convinced  reactionaries  were  unit- 
ing in  common  opposition  to  the  unhappy  Directory,  the  finances 
of  the  state  were  again  becoming  hopelessly  involved.  Financial 
"Graft"  flourished  unbridled  in  the  le\'ying  and  col-  Difficulties 
lecting  of  the  taxes  and  in  all  public  expenditures.  To  the  ex- 
travagance of  the  Directors  in  internal  administration  were 
added  the  financial  necessities  of  armies  aggregating  a  million 
men.  Paris,  still  in  poverty  and  want,  had  to  be  fed  at  the 
expense  of  the  nation.  And  the  issue  of  as  signals  by  the 
National  Constituent  Assembly,  intended  at  first  only  as  a 
temporary  expedient,  had  been  continued  until  by  the  year 
1797  the  total  face  value  of  the  assignats  amounted  to  about 
forty-five  billion  livres.  So  far  had  the  value  of  paper  money 
depreciated,  however,  that  in  March,  1796,  three  hundred  livres 
in  assignats  were  required  to  secure  one  livre  in  cash.  In  1797  a 
partial  bankruptcy  was  declared,  interest  payments  being  sus- 
pended on  tw^o-thirds  of  the  public  debt,  and  the  assignats  were 

^  Carnot,  upright  and  sincere,  and  the  only  member  of  first-rate  ability,  was 
forced  out  of  the  Directory  in  1797. 
2L 


514  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

demonetized.     The  republic  faced  much  the  same  financial  crisis 

as  had  confronted  the  absolute  monarchy  in  1789. 

r       From  but  one  direction  did  Ught  stream  in  upon  the  Directory 

'  —  and  that  was  the  foreign  war.     When  the  Directory  assumed 

office,  France  was  still  at  war  with  Austria,  Sardinia, 

Success  in     and  Great  Britain.     The  general  plan  of  campaign  was 

Foreign         ^q  advance  one  French  army  across  the  Rhine,  through 

southern    Germany,    and    thence   into    the   Austrian 

dominions,    and   to   dispatch   another    army   across    the   Alps, 

through  northern  Italy,  and  thence  on  to  Vienna.     Of  the  army 

of  the  Rhine  such  veteran  generals  as  Pichegru,  Jourdan,  and 

Moreau  were  put  in  charge.     To  the  command  of  the  army 

!  operating  in  Italy,  the  young  and  inexperienced  Bonaparte  was 

appointed. 

Napoleon  Bonaparte  hitherto  had  not  been  particularly  con- 
spicuous in  poHtics  or  in  war.  He  was  beheved  to  be  in  full 
Appearance  Sympathy  with  the  Revolution,  although  he  had  taken 
of  Napoleon  pains  after  the  downfall  of  Robespierre  to  disavow 
onapar  e  ^^^  attachment  to  the  extreme  radicals.  He  had  ac- 
quired some  popularity  by  liis  skillful  expulsion  of  the  British 
from  Toulon  in  1793,  and  his  protection  of  the  National  Con-' 
vention  against  the  uprising  of  the  Parisian  populace  in  1795 
gave  him  credit  as  a  friend  of  law  and  order.  Finally,  his 
marriage  in  1796  with  Josephine  Beauharnais,  the  widow  of  a 
revolutionary  general  and  an  intimate  friend  of  one  of  the 
Directors,  bettered  his  chances  of  indulging  his  fondness  for 
politics  and  his  genius  in  war. 

That  very  year  (1796),  while  the  older  and  more  experienced 
French  generals  were  repeatedly  bafiled  in  their  efforts  to  carry 
the  war  into  the  Germanics,  the  young  commander  — 
■pi^i^^^  ®  ^    but  twenty-seven  years  of  age  —  swept  the  Austrians 
itaUan  from  Italy.     With  Hghtning  rapidity,  with  infectious 

1796^1797      enthusiasm,  with  brilliant  tactics,  with  great  personal 
bravery,  he  crossed  the  Alps,  humbled  the  Sardinians, 
and  within  a  year  had  disposed  of  five  Austrian  armies  and  had  ^ 
occupied   every   fort    in    northern   Italy.     Sardinia   was    com-  ; 
pelled  to  cede  Savoy  and  Nice  to  the  French  Republic,  and,  ' 
when  Bonaparte's  army  approached  Vienna,  Austria  stooped  to 
make   terms  with   this   amazing   republican   general.      By   the 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  515 

treaty  of  Campo  Formio  (1797),  France  secured  the  Austrian 
Netherlands  and  the  Ionian  Islands ;  Austria  obtained,  as  par- 
tial compensation  for  her  sacrifices,  the  ancient  Vene-        ^^    ^ 
tian  Republic,  but  agreed  not  to  interfere  in  other  campo 
parts  of  Italy;    and  a  congress  was  to  assemble  at  formio, 
Rastatt  to  rearrange  the  map  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire  with  a  xdew   to  compensating  those   German  princes 
whose  lands  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rhine  had  been  appropriated 
by  France. 

The  campaign  of  1 796-1 797,  known  in  history  as  the  First 
ItaHan  campaign,  was  the  beginning  of  a  long  series  of  sensa- 
tional mihtary  exploits  which  were  to  rank  Napoleon 
Bonaparte  as  the  foremost  soldier  of  modern  times.   Britain 
Its  immediate  effect  was  to  complete  the  dissolution  fe^t  Alone 

.  ...       in  Arms 

of  the  First  CoaHtion  by  forcmg  Austria  and  bardmia  against  the 
to  follow  the  example  of  Spain,  Prussia,  and  Holland  j^^®  ^^J^jj^ 
and  to  make  a  peace  highly  favorable  to  the  French 
Repubhc.     Great  Britain  alone  continued  the  struggle  against 
the  Directory. 

Another  effect  of  the  first  Italian  campaign,  almost  as  im- 
mediate and  certainly  more  portentous,  was  the  sudden  personal 
fame  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte.  He  was  the  most  Bonaparte's 
talked-of  man  in  France.  The  people  applauded  Rising 
him.  The  government  feared  but  flattered  him.  ^™® 
Schemers  and  plotters  of  every  poHtical  faith  sought  his 
support.  Alongside  of  decreasing  respect  for  the  existing 
government  was  increasing  trust  in  Bonaparte's  strength  and 
ability. 

It  was  undoubtedly  with  a  sense  of  relief  that  the  despised 
Directors  in  1798  assented  to  a  project  proposed  by  the  popular 
hero  to  transport  to  Egypt  a  French  expedition  with  ^^^^  ^^^^,^ 
the  object  of  interrupting  communications  between  Egyptian 
Great    Britain   and    India.     The   ensuing    Egyptian  J^^Jgi^"^ 
campaign  of  1798  was  spectacular  rather  than  decisive.   Great 
Bonaparte  made  stirring  speeches  to  his  soldiers.     He  ^ntam, 
called  the  Pyramids  to  witness  the  valor  of  the  French. 
He  harangued  the  Mohammedans  upon  the  beautiful  and  truth- 
ful character  of  their  religion  and  upon  the  advantages  which 
they  would  derive  from  free  trade  with  France.     He  encouraged 


5i6  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  close  study  of  Egyptian  antiquities.^  But  his  actual  victories 
did  not  measure  up  to  the  excessively  colored  reports  that  he  sent 
home.  He  was  checked  in  Syria,  and  a  great  naval  victory  won 
by  the  celebrated  English  admiral,  Lord  Nelson,  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Nile,  effectually  prevented  the  arrival  of  reenforcements. 
Thereupon,  General  Bonaparte,  luckily  eluding  the  British 
warships,  returned  to  France.  It  was  believed  by 
ments  of  Frenchmen  that  his  last  expedition  had  been  emi- 
the  Direc-      ncntly  succcssful ;  but  that  in  the  meantime  the  work 

tory  during  , 

Bonaparte's  of  the  Directory  had  been  disastrous,  no  one  doubted. 
Absence        While  Bonaparte  was  away,  affairs  in  France  had  gone 

from  France    ^  i       i  rr^^  i  •  i 

from  bad  to  worse.  There  were  new  plots,  mcreased 
financial  and  social  disorders,  and  finally  the  renewal  on  a  large 
scale  of  foreign  war. 

After  the  treaty  of  Campo  Formio,  the  Directors  had  prose- 
cuted zealously  the  poHcy  of  surrounding  France  with  a  circle  of 

dependent  republics.  Even  before  that  peace,  Hol- 
Second  land  had  been  transformed  into  the  Batavian  Republic, 

Coalition       ^^^  j^Q^  pretexts  of  various   sorts  were  utilized   to 

and  the  r   nr-^  t  i- 

Renewal  Convert  the  duchy  of  Milan,  or  Lombardy,  into  the 
of  War  in  Cisalpine  Republic  ;  the  oligarchy  of  Genoa  into  the 
Ligurian  Republic ;  the  Papal  States  into  the  Roman 
Republic ;  the  kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicihes  into  the  Parthenopaean 
Republic ;   the  Swiss  Confederation  into  the  Helvetic  Republic. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  governments  of  all  these  republics 
were  modeled  after  that  of  France  and  were  allied  with  France, 
the  monarchs  of  Europe  bestirred  themselves  once  more  to  get 
rid  of  the  danger  that  threatened  them.  A  Second  Coalition 
was  formed  by  Great  Britain,  Austria,  and  Russia,  and,  thanks 
to  liberal  sums  of  money  supplied  by  William  Pitt,  the  British 
minister,  they  were  able  to  put  large  armies  in  the  field. 

During  1799  the  Second  Coahtion  won  repeated  victories; 
the  French  were  driven  from  Italy ;  and  most  of  the  dependent 
French  republics  collapscd.     It  seemed  as  though  Bonaparte's 

Reverses  ^j-g^^  Italian  Campaign  had  been  for  naught.  Possibly 
the  military  hero  of  France  had  himself  foreseen  this  very  situa- 
tion and  had  intended  to  exploit  it  to  his  own  advantage. 

^  It  was  an  army  officer  on  this  Egyptian  expedition  who  discovered  the  famous 
Rosetta  Stone,  by  the  aid  of  which  hieroglyphics  could  be  deciphered. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  517 

At  any  rate,  when  Bonaparte  had  sailed  for  Egypt,  he  had  left 
his   country   apparently  prosperous,   victorious,   and 
honored.      Now,    when    he    landed    at    Frejus    on    9  Bonaparte 
I  October,  1799,  he  found  Trance  bankrupt,  defeated,   from  Egypt: 
and  disgraced.      It  is  small  wonder  that  his  journey   o^theHour" 
from    Frejus    to    Paris  was  a   triumphal  ]:)rocession. 
The  majority  of  Frenchmen  were  convinced  that  he  was  the 
man  of  the  hour. 

Within  a  month  of  his  return  from  Egypt,  public  opinion 
enabled    the   young   concjueror    to   o\Trthrow    the   government 
of  the  Directory.     Skillfully  intriguing  with  the  Abbe 
Sieyes,  who  was  now  one  of  the  Directors,  he  sur-  "^Jif  ^°"P 
rounded  the  Assemblies  with  a  cordon  of  troops  loyal  the  Eight- 
to  himself  and  on  18   19  Brumaire  (9-10  November,   ^^'^^^  . 
1799)  secured  by  show  of  force  the  downfall  of  the  overthrow 
government    and    the    appointment    of    himself    to  °^.^^® 
supreme  military  command.     This  blow  at  the  state   1799 
{coup  d'etat)  was  soon  followed  by  the  promulgation 
of  a  new  constitution,   by  which   General  Bonaparte  became 
First  Consul  of  the  French  Republic. 

The  coup  d'etat  of  18  Brumaire  virtually  ended  the  Revolu- 
tion in  France.     Within  the  space  of  ten  and  a  half   Militarism 

years  from  the  assembling  of  the  Estates-General  at  ^"^  *® 
T7  Ml  1-  11  Close  of 

Versailles,    parliamentary   and    popular   government  the  Revo- 
fell  beneath  the  sword.     The  predictions  of  Marat  i"tion 
and    Robespierre    were    realized :     militarism    had    supplanted 
democracy. 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF   THE   FRENCH  REVOLUTION    (1789-1799) 

It  may  now  be  possible  for  us  to  have  some  idea  as  to  the 
real  meaning  of  these  ten  years  of  Assembhes,  constitutions, 
insurrections,  and  wars,  which  have  marked  the  period  of  the 
French  Revolution.  A  present-day  visitor  in  Paris  will  be 
struck  by  the  bold  letters  which  stand  out  on  the  pubUc 
buildings  and  churches :  Liberie,  Egalite,  Fraternite  —  Liberty, 
Equality,  Fraternity.  These  were  the  words  which  the  revolu- 
tionaries spelled  out  on  their  homes,  which  they  thought  em- 
bodied the  true  meaning  of  the  Revolution. 


5i8  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

As  to  the  meaning  of  these  words,  there  were  certainly  quite 
contradictory  views.  To  the  royahsts  and  rigid  CathoHcs  —  to 
the  privileged  nobility  and  clergy  —  to  many  a  surprised  peasant 

—  to  all  the  reactionaries,  they  meant  everything  that  was 
hateful,  blasphemous,  sordid,  inhuman,  and  unpatriotic.  To 
the  enlightened  altruistic  bourgeois  —  to  the  poverty-stricken 
workingman  of  the  city  —  to  many  a  dreamer  and  philanthropist 

—  to  all  the  extreme  radicals,  they  were  but  a  shadowy  will- 
of-the-wisp  that  glimmered  briefly  and  perhaps  indicated  faintly 
the  gorgeousness  of  the  great  day  that  much  later  might  break 
upon  them.  Between  these  extremes  of  reaction  and  radicalism 
fell  the  bulk  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  of  the  peasantry  —  the  bulk 
of  the  nation  —  and  it  is  in  their  sense  that  we  shall  try  to  make 
clear  the  meaning  of  the  three  symbolical  words. 

"Liberty"  implied  certain  political  ideals.  Government  was 
henceforth  to  be  exercised  not  autocratically  by  divine  right, 
,  "     ^^^    constitutionally   by    the   sovereign   will   of   the 

governed.  The  individual  citizen  was  no  longer  to 
be  subject  in  all  things  to  a  king,  but  was  to  be  guaranteed  in 
possession  of  personal  liberties  which  no  state  or  society  might 
abridge.  Such  were  liberty  of  conscience,  liberty  of  worship, 
liberty  of  speech,  liberty  of  publication.  The  liberty  of  owning 
private  property  was  proclaimed  by  the  French  Revolution 
as  an  inherent  right  of  man. 

"Equahty"  embraced  the  social  activities  of  the  Revolution. 

It  meant  the  abolition  of  privilege,   the  end  of  serfdom,  the 

„    destruction  of  the  feudal  system.     It  pronounced  all 

men  equal  before  the  law.     It  aspired,  though  with 

little  success,  to  afford  every  man  an  equal  chance  with   every 

other  man  in  the  pursuit  of  life  and  happiness. 

"Fraternity"  was  the  symbol  of  the  brotherhood  of  those 
who  sought  to  make  the  world  better  and  happier  and  more 
"  Frater-  just.  In  France  it  found  expression  in  an  outburst  of 
'"^y "  patriotism  and  national  sentiment.     No  longer  did 

mercenaries  fight  at  the  behest  of  despots  for  dynastic  ag- 
grandizement; henceforth  a  nation  in  arms  was  prepared  to 
do  battle  under  the  glorious  banner  of  "fraternity"  in  defense 
of  whatever  it  believed  to  be  for  the  nation's  interests. 

Pohtical  liberty,  social  equahty,  patriotism  in  the  nation,  — 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  519 

these  three  ha\-e  been  the  enduring  watchwords  of  all  those 
who  down  to  our  own  day  have  looked  for  inspiration  to  the 
French  Revolution. 


ADDITION.\L   READING 

General.  Textbook  narratives:  J.  H.  Robinson  and  C.  A.  Beard, 
The  Development  of  Modern  Europe,  Vol.  I  (1907),  ch.  xii,  xiii ;  J.  A.  R. 
Marriott,  The  Remaking  of  Modern  Europe,  ijSg-iSyS  (1910),  ch.  i-vi; 
H.  E.  Bourne,  The  Revolutionary  Period  in  Europe,  1763-1815  (1914),  ch.  vi- 
xvi ;  H.  j\I.  Stephens,  Revolutionary  Europe,  lySg-iSis  (1893),  ch.  ii-vi ; 
J.  H.  Rose,  Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  Era,  ijSg-iSis  (1895),  ch-  ii~ 
vi;  C.  A.  Fyffe,  A  History  of  Modern  Europe,  I7Q2~iS/8  (1896),  ch.  i-iv; 
H.  T.  Dyer,  A  History  of  Modern  Europe  from  the  Fall  of  Constantinople, 
3ded.  rev.  by  Arthur  Hassall  (1901),  ch.  lii-ki;  Charles  Scignobos,  History 
of  Contemporary  Civilization,  Eng.  trans,  by  J.  A.  James  (1909),  pp.  92-149. 
See  also  H.  A.  L.  Fisher,  The  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe  (191 1),  ch.  i-vii ; 
and  Emile  Bourgeois,  Manuel  historique  dc  politique  etrangcre,  4th  ed.,  Vol. 
II  (1906),  ch.  i-v,  vii. 

One-volume  surveys :  Shailer  jVIathews,  The  French  Revolution  (reprint 
1912),  a  clear,  well-balanced  introduction,  ending  with  the  year  1795; 
Hilaire  BeUoc,  The  French  Revolution  (191 1),  in  the  "Home  University 
Library,"  interestingly  written  and  inclined  to  be  philosophical;  R.  M. 
Johnston,  The  French  Revolution  (1909),  emphasizes  the  spectacular  and 
military  rather  than  the  social  and  economic ;  Louis  Madehn,  La  Revolu- 
tion (191 1),  written  for  the  general  French  reader  and  probably  the  very 
best  of  its  kind,  now  in  process  of  translation  into  English. 

Standard  histories  of  the  Revolution  :  Alphonse  Aulard,  Histoire  politique 
de  la  revolution  franqaise,  1780-1804,  3d  ed.  (1905),  Eng.  trans,  by  Bernard 
MiaU,  4  vols.  (1910),  a  painstaking  study  of  the  growth  of  the  spirit  of 
democracy  and  of  the  rise  of  the  republican  movement,  by  an  eminent 
authority  who  has  devoted  many  years  to  a  sympathetic  study  of  the 
Revolution ;  H.  M.  Stephens,  A  History  of  the  French  Revolution,  2  vols. 
(1886-1891),  mainly  political,  generally  reliable,  but  stops  short  with  the 
Reign  of  Terror;  H.  A.  Taine,  The  French  Revolution,  Eng.  trans,  by  John 
Durand,  3  vols.  (1878-1S85),  brilliantly  written  and  bitterly  hostile  to  many 
of  the  leaders  of  the  Revolution,  a  work  still  famous  though  many  of  its 
findings  have  been  vehemently  assailed  by  Aulard,  the  apologist  of  the 
Revolution;  Jean  Jaures  (editor),  Histoire  socialiste,  ij8g-igoo,  12  vols, 
(i  901-1909),  a  well-known  and  highly  useful  history  of  France  by  a  group 
of  prominent  French  Sociahsts  with  a  penchant  for  stressing  economic 
matters  —  Vols.  I-IV,  by  Jaures  himself,  treat  of  the  years  1789-1794, 
and  Vol.  V,  by  Gabrielle  Deville,  of  1 794-1 799;  P.  A.  (Prince)  Kropotkin, 
The  Great  French  Revolution,  I78g~i7g3,  Eng.  trans,  by  N.  F.  Dryhurst 
(1909),  emphasizes  the  role  played  by  the  uneducated  classes,  eulogizes 


520  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Marat,  and  suggests  the  conflict  of  interests  between  the  bourgeoisie  and 
the  lower  classes;  Thomas  Carlyle,  The  French  Revolution,  originally  pub- 
lished in  1837,  lively  literary  gossip  and  commentary  rather  than  narrative 
history,  amusing  though  often  fuliginous,  should  be  read  only  by  those 
already  familiar  with  the  actual  events  of  the  Revolution ;  Albert  Sorel, 
U Europe  et  la  revolution  franQaise,  8  vols.  (1885-1904),  of  which  Vols.  I- 
V  deal  with  the  years  1789-1799  and  mainly  with  the  effects  of  the  Revolu- 
tion throughout  Europe,  a  monumental  work  of  the  highest  merit ;  Gustave 
Le  Bon,  La  revolution  franqaise  et  la  psychologie  des  revolutions  (191 2),  trans, 
by  Bernard  Miall  under  the  title  of  Tlie  Psychology  of  Revolution  (1913),  a 
noteworthy  contribution  to  the  study  of  "  mob  psychology  "  as  exemplified 
by  the  French  Revolution;  Ernest  Lavisse  and  Alfred  Rambaud  (editors), 
Histoire  generale,  Vol.  VIII,  a  collection  of  scholarly  monographs  on 
various  phases  of  the  Revolution ;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  VIII 
(1904),  a  similar  work  in  English;  Heinrich  von  Sybel,  Geschichte  der 
Revolutionzeit  von  lySg,  3d  ed.,  5  vols.  (1865-1879),  the  best  and  most 
famous  German  work  on  the  subject ;  Wilhelm  Oncken,  Das  Zeit alter  der 
Revolution,  2  vols.  (1884-1886) ;  Adalbert  Wahl,  Geschichte  des  enropdischen 
Staatensystems  im  Zeitalter  der  franzosischen  Revolution  und  der  Freiheits- 
Kriege,  1789-1815  (1912),  useful  epitome  of  foreign  relations;  Emile 
Levasseur,  Histoire  des  classes  ouvrieres  et  de  Vindustrie  en  France  de  1789 
a  1870,  Vol.  I  (1903),  Livre  I,  La  Revolution,  valuable  for  the  history  of  the 
working  classes;  Philippe  Sagnac,  La  legislation  civile  de  la  revolution 
franqaise,  1789-1804  (1898),  very  important  survey  of  permanent  social 
and  civil  gains;  E.  F.  Henderson,  Symbol  and  Satire  in  the  French  Revolu- 
tion (1912),  interesting  side-lights. 

Source  Materials.  Of  the  vast  masses  of  source  material  available  for 
special  study  of  the  French  Revolution,  the  following  selections  may  be 
found  useful  and  suggestive :  F.  M.  Anderson,  Constitutions  and  Other 
Select  Documents  Illustrative  of  the  History  of  France,  1789-1901,  2d  rev.  ed. 
(1909) ;  L.  G.  Wickham  Legg,  Select  Documents  Illustrative  of  the  French 
Revolution,  the  Constituent  Assembly,  2  vols.  (1905) ;  Leon  Duguit  and 
Henry  Monnier,  Les  constitutions  et  les  principales  lois  politiques  de  la  France 
depuis  1789  (1898) ;  H.  M.  Stephens,  The  Principal  Speeches  of  the  States- 
men and  Orators  of  the  French  Revolution,  1789-1795,  2  vols.  (1892) ;  Leon 
Cahen  and  Raymond  Guyot,  L'cBuvre  legislative  de  la  revolution  (1913) ; 
Alphonse  Aulard,  Les  graruis  orateurs  de  la  revolution  —  Vergniaud,  Danton, 
Robespierre  (1914) ;  Merrick  Whitcomb,  Typical  Cahiers  of  1789,  in  "  Trans- 
lations and  Reprints  "  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  (1898).  In  the 
Collection  de  documents  inedits  sur  Vhisloire  economique  de  la  revolution 
franqaise,  now  in  course  of  publication  under  the  auspices  of  the  French 
Ministry  of  Public  Instruction,  have  appeared  (1906-19 15)  several  volumes 
of  the  local  cahiers  of  1 788-1 789.  See  also  Armand  Brette,  Recueil  des 
documents  rclatifs  a  la  convocation  des  etats  generaux  de  1789,  3  vols.  (1894- 
1904) ;  P.  J.  B.  Buchez  and  P.  C.  Roux-Lavcrgnc,  Histoire  parlcmcntairc 
de  la  revolution  franqaise,   1789-1815,   40  vols,    (i 834-1 838),   embracing 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  521 

extracts  from  the  debates,  quotations  from  contemporary  newspapers  and 
pamphlets,  and  the  text  of  some  of  the  most  important  statutes  and  decrees; 
Archives  parlcmcntaircs  dc  ijSj  a  i860,  ist  series  lySj-iygg,  82  vols.,  the 
official,  but  not  always  trustworthy,  reports  of  the  debates  in  the  successive 
French  legislative  bodies;  Reimpression  dc  I'ancicn  Monitcur,  32  vols.,  a 
reprint,  in  several  different  editions,  of  one  of  the  most  famous  Parisian 
newspapers  of  the  revolutionary  period ;  Alphonse  Aulard,  La  sociele  dcs 
jacobins,  6  vols.  (iSSg-iSgj),  a  collection  of  documents  concerning  the  most 
influential  political  club  of  revolutionary  P'rance.  Of  the  numerous 
memoirs  of  the  time,  perhaps  the  most  valuable  are  those  of  Mallet  du 
Pan,  Comte  de  Fersen,  Bailly,  Fcrriercs,  and  IMalouet ;  see  also  the  History 
of  My  Time  by  the  Due  d'Audiffret-Pasquier  (1767-1862),  Eng.  trans,  by 
C.  E.  Roche,  3  vols.  (1893-1894),  especially  Part  I;  and  for  additional 
memoirs  and  other  source-material  consult  the  bibliographies  in  the  Cam- 
bridge Modern  History  or  in  the  Histoire  generale.  There  are  several  de- 
tailed bibliographies  on  the  French  Revolution  ;  and  since  1881  the  veteran 
scholar  Aulard  has  edited  La  revolution  franc^aise,  devoted  exclusively  to  the 
subject.  For  interesting  personal  impressions  of  the  Revolution  by  an 
American  eye-witness,  see  Gouverneur  Morris,  Diary  and  Letters,  2  vols. 
(1888).  F.  M.  and  H.  D.  Fling,  Source  Problems  on  the  French  Revolution 
(1913),  is  a  useful  compilation  for  intensive  critical  study  of  various  phases 
of  the  Revolution. 

Special  Works  on  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  French  Revolution.  W.  M. 
Sloane,  The  French  Revolution  and  Religious  Reform  (igoi),  a  resume  of 
legislation  affecting  the  Church,  1789-1804;  Antonin  Debidour,  Histoire  des 
rapports  de  Veglise  et  de  Tctat  en  France  de  17 8g  a  i8~o  (1898) ;  Pierre  de 
La  Gorce,  Histoire  religieuse  de  la  revolution  franqaise,  Vol.  I,  ij8g-ijgi 
(1909),  Vol.  II,  lygi-iyg^  (1912),  comprehensive  and  exhaustive,  sympa- 
thetic with  the  Church  but  scrupulously  fair ;  Paul  Pisani,  L'eglise  de  Paris 
et  la  revolution,  4  vols.  (1908-1911),  covering  the  years  1789-1802,  a  work 
of  high  rank  by  a  canon  of  Notre  Dame;  J.  F.  E.  Robinet,  Le  mouvement 
religieux  a  Paris  pendant  la  revolution,  ij8g-i8oi,  2  vols.  (1896-1898), 
primarily  a  collection  of  documents;  The  Abbe  Bridier  (editor),  A  Papal 
Envoy  during  the  Reign  of  Terror,  being  the  Memoirs  of  Mgr.  de  Salamon 
the  Internuncio  at  Paris  during  the  Revolution,  ijgo-iSoi,  Eng.  trans,  by 
Frances  Jackson  (191 1);  Ludovic  Sciout,  Histoire  de  la  constitution  civile 
du  clerge,  iygo-1801,  4  vols.  (187 2-188 1) ;  Alphonse  Aulard,  La  revolution 
et  les  congregations :  expose  historique  et  documents  (1903) ;  Edme  Champion, 
La  separation  de  Veglise  et  de  Vetat  en  i'jg4  (1903). 

Special  Works  on  Contemporary  English  Opinion  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion. Edward  Dowden,  The  French  Revolution  and  English  Literature 
(1897) ;  H.  N.  Brailsford,  Shelley,  Godwin,  and  their  Circle  (1913)  ;  W.  P. 
Hall,  British  Radicalism,  lygi-iygy  (191 2) ;  Edmund  Burke,  Reflections 
on  the  Revolution  in  France,  in  many  editions,  a  furious  and  prejudiced 
arraignment  of  the  whole  movement ;  John  (Viscount)  Morley,  Edmund 
Burke    (1879),   an    apology  for   Burke;    John    MacCunn,    The  Political 


522  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Philosophy  of  Burke  (1913),  clear  and  concise  though  somewhat  less 
laudatory  of  Burke;  The  Life  and  Writings  of  Thomas  Paine,  edited  by 
D.  E.  Wheeler,  10  vols.  (1909),  the  most  elaborate  edition  of  the  writings 
of  the  chief  English  friend  of  the  Revolution;  Paine's  The  Rights  of  Man 
has  appeared  in  many  other  editions. 

Secondary  Works  on  Other  Special  Topics.  On  the  wars  1 792-1795: 
Arthur  Chuquet,  Lcs  gucrrcs  dc  la  revolution,  11  vols,  (i 886-1 896),  very 
detailed,  coming  down  only  to  September,  1793;  A.  T.  Mahan,  The  In- 
fluence of  Sea  Power  upon  the  French  Revolution  and  Empire,  i'/gj-'i8i2. 
Vol.  I,  loth  ed.  (1898) ;  Mrs.  Maxwell-Scott,  Life  of  the  Marquise  de  la 
Roche jaquclein  (19 12),  and  Ida  A.  Taylor,  The  Tragedy  of  an  Army:  La 
Vendee  in  17Q3  (1913),  two  sympathetic  and  popular  accounts  of  the  Ven- 
dean  Revolt.  On  the  Terror:  H.  A.  Wallon,  La  Terreur,  2  vols.  (1881), 
and,  by  the  same  author,  Lcs  representants  du  peuple  en  mission,  5  vols. 
(1889-1890),  and  Le  tribunal  revolutionnaire,  2  vols.  (1900) ;  Louis  Mortimer- 
Ternaux,  Histoire  de  la  Terreur,  lygz-iyg^,  8  vols.  (1862) ;  Edmond  Eire, 
La  legendc  des  girondins  (1881) ;  Charles  de  Ricault  Hericault,  La  revolu- 
tion dc  thcrmidor,  2d  ed.  (1878).  On  the  Directory,  1795-1799:  Ludovic 
Sciout,  Le  Directoire,  2  vols.  (1895-1896). 

Biographies.  Of  Mirabeau,  the  best  biography  in  English  undoubtedly 
will  be  that  of  F.  M.  Fluag,  projected  in  three  volumes,  of  which  Vol.  I, 
The  Youth  of  Mirabeau,  was  published  in  1908 ;  the  most  recent  and  con- 
venient French  treatment  is  by  Louis  Barthou  (1913) ;  a  standard  German 
work  is  Alfred  Stern,  Das  Lcbcii  Mirabeaus,  2  vols.  (1889) ;  and  for  a  real 
insight  into  Mirabeau 's  character  and  policies,  reference  should  be  made 
to  his  Correspondance  avec  le  comte  de  la  March,  3  vols.  (1851).  Hilaire 
Belloc  has  written  very  readable  and  suggestive  English  biographies  of 
Danton  (1899),  Robespierre  (1901),  and  Marie  Antoinette  (1909).  Perhaps 
the  best  brief  appreciation  of  Danton  is  that  by  Louis  Madelin  (1914) ; 
J.  F.  E.  Robinet  has  written  a  valuable  Danton  (1889),  and  likewise  a 
Condorcet  (1893).  The  elaborate  Histoire  de  Robespierre  et  du  coup  d'etat 
du  g  thermidor  by  Ernest  Hamel,  3  vols.  (1865-1867),  is  marred  by  excessive 
hero-worship.  Jules  Claretie,  Camille  Desmoulins,  Lucille  Desmoulins : 
etude  sur  les  dantonistcs  (1875),  a  charming  biography,  has  been  translated 
into  English.  Among  other  useful  biographies  of  persons  prominent  during 
the  Revolution,  the  following  might  be  consulted  with  profit :  J.  H.  Clap- 
ham,  The  Abbe  Sieyes:  an  Essay  in  the  Politics  of  the  French  Revolution 
(1912) ;  E.  D.  Bradby,  The  Life  of  Bar  nave,  2  vols.  (1915),  containing  vivid 
descriptions  of  the  National  Constituent  Assembly;  Frangois  Chevre- 
mont,  Jean-Paul  Marat,  2  vols.  (1880) ;  Charles  Vatel,  Vergniaud,  2  vols. 
(1873),  and,  by  the  same  author,  Charlotte  de  Corday  et  les  girondins:  pieces 
classees  et  annotees,  3  vols.  (1864-1872) ;  Arthur  Chuquet,  Dumouriez 
(1914) ;  Pouget  de  Saint-Andre,  Le  general  Dumouriez,  i/'jg~i82j  (1914) ; 
C.  A.  Dauban,  Etude  sur  Madame  Roland  et  son  temps  (1864) ;  Bernard 
Mallet,  Mallet  du  Pan  and  the  French  Revolution  (1902) ;  E.  B.  Bax,  Babeuf: 
the  Last  Episode  of  the  French  Revolution  (1911). 


CHAPTER   XVI 

THE   ERA   OF   NAPOLEON 

I  From  1799  to  1814  the  history  of  Europe  was  the  history  of 
'  France,  and  the  history  of  France  was  the  biography  of  Napoleon 
Bonaparte.  So  completely  did  this  masterful  per-  introduc- 
sonality  dominate  the  course  of  events  that  his  name  ^°^y 
has  justly  been  used  to  characterize  this  era.  The  Era  of  Na- 
poleon stands  out  as  one  of  the  most  significant  periods  in  mod- 
ern times.  Apart  from  its  importance  as  marking  a  revolution 
in  the  art  of  war,  it  bore  memorable  results  in  two  directions : 
(i)  the  adaptation  of  revolutionary  theories  to  French  practical 
political  necessities,  and  the  establishment  of  many  of  the  per- 
manent institutions  of  present-day  France;  and  (2)  the  com- 
munication of  the  revolutionary  doctrines  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion far  and  wide  throughout  Europe,  so  that  henceforth  the 
movement  was  general  rather  than  local. 

During  the  first  five  years  of  the  era  (i 799-1804)  France 
remained  formally  a  republic.  It  was  in  these  years  that  Gen- 
eral Bonaparte,  as  First  Consul,  consohdated  his  country  and 
fashioned  the  nature  ©f  the  lasting  gains  of  the  Revolution. 
I  Thenceforth,  from  1804  to  1814,  France  was  an  empire,  estab- 
1  Ushed  and  maintained  by  military  force.  Then  it  was  that  the 
national  hero  —  self -crowned  Napoleon  I,  emperor  of  the  French, 
—  by  means  of  war,  conquest,  annexation,  or  alliance,  spread  the 
ideas  of  his  country  far  and  wide  throughout  Europe.  Before 
we  review  the  main  activities  of  the  constructive  consulate  or 
of  the  proselyting  empire,  we  should  have  some  notion  of  the 
character  of  the  leading  actor. 

THE    FRENCH    REPUBLIC    UNDER   THE    CONSULATE, 

1799-1S04 

When  General  Bonaparte  executed  the  coup  d'etat  of  1799 
and  seized  personal  power  in  France,  he  was  thirty  years  of  age, 

523 


524  HISTORY   OF   MODERN    EUROPE 

short,  of  medium  build,  quiet  and  determined,  with  cold  gray 
eyes  and  rather  awkward  manners.  His  early  life  had  been 
Napoleon  peculiarly  interesting.  He  was  born  at  Ajaccio  in 
Bonaparte  Corsica  on  15  August,  1 769.  just  after  the  island  had 
been  purchased  by  France  from  Genoa  but  before  the  French 
had  fully  succeeded  in  quelling  a  stubborn  insurrection  of  the 
Corsicans.  Belonging  to  a  prominent  and  numerous  ItaHan 
family,  —  at  the  outset  his  name  was  written  Napoleone  di 
Buonaparte,  —  he  was  selected  along  with  sons  of  other  conspicu- 
ous Corsican  families  to  be  educated  at  public  expense  in  France. 
In  this  way  he  received  a  good  iniUtary  education  at  Brienne 
and  at  Paris.  He  early  displayed  a  marked  fondness  for  the 
study  of  mathematics  and  history  as  well  as  for  the  science  of  war ; 
and,  though  reserved  and  taciturn,  he  was  noticeably  ambitious 
and  a  keen  judge  of  men. 

During  his  youth  Buonaparte  dreamed  of  becoming  the 
leader  in  establishing  the  independence  of  Corsica,  but  the  out- 
break of  the  French  Revolution  afforded  him  a  wider  field  for  his 
enthusiasm  and  ambition.  Already  an  engineer  and  artillery- 
man, he  threw  in  his  lot  with  the  Jacobins,  sympathized  at 
least  outwardly  with  the  course  of  the  Revolution,  and  was 
rewarded,  as  we  have  seen,  with  an  important  place  in  the  recap- 
ture of  Toulon  (1793)  and  in  the  defense  of  the  Convention 
(1795).  It  was  not,  however,  until  his  first  Itahan  campaign, 
—  when  incidentally  he  altered  his  name  to  the  French  form, 
Bonaparte,  —  that  he  acquired  a  commanding  reputation  as  the 
foremost  general  of  the  French  RepubKc. 

How  Bonaparte  utilized  his  reputation  in  order  to  make 
himself  master  of  his  adopted  country  has  already  been  related. 
Character  ^^  ^^^  ^^^  ^^  large  part  to  an  extraordinary  opportu- 
of  Bona-  nity  which  French  politics  at  that  time  offered.  But 
^^^  ^  it  was  due,  Ukewise,  to  certain  characteristic  quahties 

of  the  young  general.  In  the  first  place,  he  was  thoroughly 
convinced  of  his  own  abihties.  Ambitious,  selfish,  and  egotis- 
tical, he  was  always  thinking  and  planning  how  he  might  become 
world-famous.  FataHstic  and  even  superstitious,  he  beUeved 
that  an  unseen  power  was  leading  him  on  to  higher  and  grander 
honors.  He  convinced  his  associates  that  he  was  "a.  man  of 
destiny."     Then,  in  the  second  place,  Bonaparte  possessed  an 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  525 

effective  means  of  satisfyin<j;  his  ambition,  for  he  made  himself 
the  idol  of  his  soldiers.     "He  would  go  to  sleep  repeating  the 
names  of  the  corps,  and  even  those  of  some  of  the  individuals 
who  composed  them ;    he  kept  these  names  in  a  corner  of  his 
memory,  and  this  habit  came  to  his  aid  when  he  wanted  to 
recognize  a  soldier  and  to  give  him  a  cheering  word  from  his 
general.     He  spoke  to  the  subalterns  in  a  tone  of  good  fellow- 
ship, which  delighted  them  all,  as  he  reminded  them  of  their 
1  common  feats  of  arms."     Then,  in  the  third  place,  Bonaparte 
^  was  a  keen  observer  and  a  clever  critic.     Being  sagacious,  he 
knew  that  by  1799  France  at  large  was  weary  of  weak  govern- 
ment and  perpetual  political  strife  and  that  she  longed  to  have 
her  scars  healed  by  a  practical  man.     Such  a  man  he  instinc- 
t  tively  felt  himself  to  be.     In  the  fourth  place,  Bonaparte  was 
'  a  politician  to  the  extreme  of  being  unscrupulous.     Knowing 
I  what  he  desired,  he  was  ready  and  willing  to  employ  any  means 
I  to  attain  his  ends.     No  love  for  theories  or  principles,  no  fear 
^  of  God  or  man,  no  sentimental  aversion  from  bloodshed,  nothing 
could  deter  him  from  striving  to  realize  his  vaulting  but  self- 
I  centered  ambition.     Finally,  there  was  in  his  nature  an  almost 
paradoxical  vein  of  poetry  and  art  which  made  him  human  and 
'  often  served  him  well.     He  dreamed  of  empires  and  triumphs. 
He  reveled  in  the  thought  of  courts  and  polished  society.     He 
entertained  a  sincere  admiration  for  learning.     His  highly  colored 
speeches  to  his  soldiers  were  at  once  brilliant  and  inspiriting. 
His  fine  instinct  of  the  dramatic  gave  the  right  setting  to  all 
(  his  public  acts.     And  in  the  difficult  arts  of  lying  and  deception, 
!  Bonaparte  has  never  been  surpassed. 

Such  was  the  man  who  effected  the  coup  cfetat  of  18  Bru- 
maire  (November,  1799).     His  first  work  in  his  new  role  was 
to  publish  a  constitution,  which  he  prepared  in  con- 
junction with  the  Abbe  Sieyes  and  which  was  to  super-  Government 
sede  the  Constitution  of  the  Year  III.     It  concealed  °}^^^, 

1  •!•  •  .1      ,•  1        r  Consulate: 

the  mnitary  despotism  under  a  veil  of  popular  forms.   Constitu- 
,  The  document  named  three  "consuls,"   the  first  of  !!°"  °L^]l® 

whom  was  Bonaparte  himself,  who  were  to  appoint 
^a  Senate.     From  lists  selected  by  general  election,  the  Senate 

was  to  designate  a  Tribunate  and  a  Legislative  Body.     The 

First  Consul,  in  addition  to  conducting  the  administration  and 


526  HISTORY   OF  MODERN   EUROPE 

foreign  policies  and  having  charge  of  the  army,  was  to  propose, 
through  a  Council  of  State,  all  the  laws.  The  Tribunate  was 
to  discuss  the  laws  without  voting  on  them.  The  Legislative 
Body  was  then  to  vote  on  the  laws  without  discussing  them. 
And  the  Senate,  acting  as  a  kind  of  supreme  court,  was  to  decide 
all  constitutional  questions.  Thus  a  written  constitution  was 
provided,  and  the  principle  of  popular  election  was  recognized, 
but  in  last  analysis  all  the  power  of  the  state  was  centered  in  the 
First  Consul,  who  was  Napoleon  Bonaparte. 

The  document  was  forthwith  submitted  for  ratification  to 
a  popular  vote,  called  a  plebiscite.  So  great  was  the  disgust 
'  with  the  Directory  and  so  unbounded  was  the  faith  of  all  classes 
in  the  military  hero  who  offered  it,  that  it  was  accepted  by  an 
overwhelming  majority  and  was  henceforth  known  in  French 
history  as  the  Constitution  of  the  Year  VIII. 

One  reason  why  the  French  nation  so  readily  acquiesced 
in  an  obvious  act  of  usurpation  was  the  grave  foreign  danger  that 
threatened  the  country.  As  we  have  noted  in  another 
\   Danger  connection,  the  armies  of  the  Second  Coalition  in  the 

Confronting  course  of  1 799  had  rapidly  undone  the  settlement  of 
the  treaty  of  Campo  Formio,  and,  possessing  them- 
selves of  Italy  and  the  Rhine  valley,  were  now  on  the  point  of 
carrying  the  war  into  France.  The  First  Consul  perceived  at 
a  glance  that  he  must  face  essentially  the  same  situation  as  that 
which  confronted  France  in  1796. 

The  Second  Coalition  embraced  Great  Britain,  Austria,  and 
Russia.  Bonaparte  soon  succeeded  by  flattery  and  diplomacy 
_.     .    .        not  only  in  securing  the  withdrawal  of  Russia  but 

Dissolution         ,  -'.  iiir.  rr^  T^l 

of  the  m    actuatmg    the   halt-msane    i  sar    raul    to    revive 

Second  against  Great  Britain  an  Armed  Neutrahty  of  the 

North,  which  included  Russia,  Prussia,  Sweden,  and 
Denmark.  Meanwhile  the  First  Consul  prepared  a  second  Ital- 
ian campaign  against  Austria.  Suddenly  leading  a  French  army 
through  the  rough  and  icy  passes  of  the  Alps,  he  descended  into 
the  fertile  valley  of  the  Po  and  at  Marengo  in  June,  1800,  in- 
flicted an  overwhelming  defeat  upon  the  enemy.  French  suc- 
cess in  Italy  was  supplemented  a  few  months  later  by  a  brilliant 
'  victory  of  the  army  under  Moreau  at  Hohenlinden  in  southern 
\  Germany.     Whereupon  Austria  again  sued  for  peace,  and  the 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  527 

^  resulting  treaty  of  Luneville  (1801)  reaffirmed  and  strengthened 
the  provisions  of  the  peace  of  Campo  Formio. 

Meanwhile,  steps  were  being  taken  to  terminate  the  state  of 
war  which  had  been  existing  between  France  and  Great  Britain 
since  1793.     Although  French  arms  were  victorious 
{  in  Europe,  the  British  squadron  of  Lord  Nelson  (1758-  b^^een 
\  1805)  had  managed  to  win  and  retain  the  supremacy  France 
of  the  sea.     By  gaining  the  battle  of    the  Nile  (i   Britain^^ 
August,  1798)  Nelson  had  cut  off  the  supplies  of  the  Treaty  of 
French  expedition  in  Egj-pt  and  eventually  (1801)    ^^2^^' 
obliged  it  to  surrender.     Now,  by  a  furious  bombard- 
j  ment  of  Copenhagen  (2  April,  1801),  Nelson  broke  up  the  Armed 
I  Neutrality  of  the  North.     But  despite  the  naval  feats  of  the 
British,  republican  France  seemed  to  be  unconquerable  on  the 
Continent.     Under   these   circumstances   a   treaty   was   signed 
I  at  Amiens  in  March,  1802,  whereby  Great  Britain  promised  to 
restore  all  the  colonial  conquests  made  during  the  war,  except 
Ceylon   and    Trinidad,    and   tacitly   accepted   the   Continental 
settlement    as   defined    at   Luneville.     The    treaty   of   Amiens 
proved  to  be  but  a  temporary  truce  in  the  long  struggle  between 
France  and  Great  Britain. 

So'  far,  the  Consulate  had  meant  the  establishment  of  an 
advantageous  peace  for  France.  With  all  foreign  foes  subdued, 
with  territories  extended  to  the  Rhine,  and  with  alhes  ^ 

French 

m  Spam,  and  in  the  Bata\dan,  Helvetic,  Ligurian,  and  Reforms 
Cisalpine  repubhcs,   the    First    Consul  was  free    to  u°der  the 

11.  1  .    .  11..  .  Consulate 

devote  his  marvelous  organizing  and  admimstrative 
instincts  to  the  internal  affairs  of  his  country.     The  period  of 
the  Consulate  (i  799-1804)  was  the  period  of  Bonaparte's  greatest 
and  most  enduring  contributions  to  the  development  of  French 
institutions. 

Throughout   his   career   Bonaparte   professed   himself   to   be 
the  "son  of  the  Revolution,"  the  heir  to  the  new  doctrine  of 
Liberty,  Equality,  and  Fraternity.     It  was  to  the  Revo-  ^j^g  r^^q. 
lution  that  he  owed  his  position  in  France,  and  it  was  lutionary 
to  France  that  he  claimed  to  be  assuring  the  results     ^"  ^® 
of  the  Revolution.     Yet,  in  actual  practice,  it  was  equality  and 
fraternity,  but  not  liberty,  that  were  preserved  by  the  First 
\  Consul.     "What   the   French  people  want,"   he  declared,   "is 


528  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

equality,  not  liberty."  In  the  social  order,  therefore,  Bona- 
parte rigidly  maintained  the  abolition  of  privilege,  of  serfdom 
and  feudahsm,  and  sought  to  guarantee  to  all  Frenchmen  equal 
justice,  equal  rights,  equal  opportunity  of  advancement.  But 
in  the  political  order  he  exercised  a  tyranny  as  complete,  if  less 
open,  than  that  of  Louis  XIV. 

The  Constitution  of  the  Year  VIII  (1799)  placed  in  Bona- 
parte's  hands   all    the    legislative    and    executive    functions   of 
.  .  the  central  government,  and  a  series  of  subsequent 

trative  acts  put  the  law  courts  under  his  control.     In  1800 

Centraii-        |-]^g  local  government  of  the  whole  country  was  sub- 

zation  .  ,  ,  "^ 

ordmated  to  him.  The  extensive  powers  vested  by 
the  Constituent  Assembly  in  elective  bodies  of  the  departments 
and  smaller  districts  (arrondissements)  were  now  to  be  wielded 
by  prefects  and  sub-prefects,  appointed  by  the  First  Consul  and 
responsible  to  him.  The  local  elective  councils  continued  to 
exist,  but  sat  only  for  a  fortnight  in  the  year  and  had  to  deal 
merely  with  the  assessment  of  taxes :  they  might  be  consulted 
by  the  prefect  or  sub-prefect  but  had  no  serious  check  upon 
the  executive.  The  mayor  of  every  small  commune  was  hence- 
forth to  be  chosen  by  the  prefect,  while  the  poHce  of  all  cities 
containing  more  than  100,000  inhabitants  were  directed  by  the 
central  government  and  the  mayors  of  towns  of  more  than  5000 
population  were  chosen  by  Bonaparte. 

This  highly  centralized  administration  of  the  country  af- 
forded the  people  Httle  direct  voice  in  governmental  matters  but 
it  possessed  distinct  advantages  in  assuring  the  prompt,  uniform, 
military-Hke  execution  of  the  laws  and  decrees  of  the  central 
government.  In  essence  it  was  a  continuation  of  the  system  of 
intendants  instituted  by  Cardinal  Richeheu.  How  conservative 
are  the  French  people,  at  least  in  the  institutions  of  local  govern- 
ment, may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  despite  many  changes 
in  France  during  the  nineteenth  century  from  repubHc  to  empire 
to  monarchy  to  republic  to  empire  to  republic,  Bonaparte's 
Bonaparte's  system  of  prefects  and  sub-prefects  has  survived  to 
Centralizing    the  present  day. 

As  in  administration,  so  in  all  his  internal  reforms, 
Bonaparte  displayed  the  same  fondness  for  centralization,  with 
consequent  thoroughness  and  efficiency,  at  the  expense  of  ideal- 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  529 

istic  liberty.  His  reforms  of  every  description  —  financial,  ec- 
clesiastical, judicial,  educational,  —  and  even  his  public  works, 
showed  the  guiding  hand  of  the  victorious  general  rather  than 
that  of  the  convinced  revolutionary.  They  were  the  adaptation 
of  the  revolutionary  heritage  to  the  purposes  and  poKcies  of  one- 
man  power. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  financial  disorders  had  been  the 
immediate  cause  of  the  downfall  of  the  absolute  monarchy  as 
well  as  of  the  Directory.     From  the  outset,  Bonaparte  Financial 
guarded    against   any   such    recurrence.     By   careful  Readjust- 
collcction  of  taxes  he  increased  the  revenue  of  the 
state.     By  rigid  economy,  by  the  severe  punishment  of  corrupt 
officials,  and  by  the  practice  of  obliging  people  whose  lands  he 
invaded  to  support  his  armies,  he  reduced  the  public  expendi- 
tures.    The   crowning   achievement   of  his  financial  The  Bank 
readjustments  was  the  establishment   (1800)   of  the  of  France 
Bank  of  France,  which  has  been  ever  since  one  of  the  soundest 
financial  institutions  in  the  world. 

Another  grave  problem  which  Bonaparte  inherited  from  the 
Revolution  was  the  quarrel  between  the  state  and  the  Roman 
CatboHc  Church.     He  was  determined  to  gain  the 
political  support  of  the  large  number  of  conscientious  ticaiTe^e- 
French   Catholics   who   had   been   ahenated   by   the  ment:  the 
harsh  anti-clerical  measures   of   the  revolutionaries.   ^^^^^^  ^ ' 
After  dehcate  and  protracted  negotiations,  a  settle- 
ment was  reached  in  a  concordat  (1801)   between  Pope  Pius 
VII  and  the  French  RepubHc,  whereby  the  pope,  for  his  part, 
concurred  in  the  confiscation  of  the  property  of  the  Church  and 
the  suppression  of  the  monasteries,  and  the  First  Consul  under- 
took to  have  the  salaries  of  the  clergy  paid  by  the  state;    the 
latter  was  to  nominate  the  bishops  and  the  former  was  to  invest 
them  with  their  office ;   the  priests  were  to  be  appointed  by  the 
bishops.     In  this  way  the  CathoHc  Church  in  France  became 
a  branch  of  the  lay  government  much  more  completely  than  it 
had  been  in  the  time  of  Louis  XIV.     So  advantageous  did  the 
arrangement  appear  that  the  Concordat  of  1801  continued  to 
regulate  the  relations  of  church  and  state  until  1905. 

One  of  the  fondest  hopes  cherished  by  enhghtened  hberals 
was  to  clear  away  the  confusion  and  discrepancies  of  the  nu- 


530  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

merous  legal  systems  of  the  old  regime  and  to  reduce  the  laws 
of  the  land  to  a  simple  and  uniform  code,  so  that  every  person 
Judicial  who  could  read  would  be  able  to  know  what  was  legal 
Reforms  ^j^^j  v/hat  was  illegal.  The  constitution  of  1791  had 
promised  such  a  work ;  the  National  Convention  had  actually 
begun  it ;  but  the  preoccupations  of  the  leading  revolutionaries, 
combined  with  the  natural  caution  and  slowness  of  the  lawyers 
to  whom  the  task  was  intrusted,  delayed  its  completion.  It  was 
not  until  the  commanding  personaHty  of  Bonaparte  came  into 
contact  with  it  that  real  progress  was  made.  Then  surrounding 
himself  with  excellent  legal  advisers  ^  whom  he  Uterally  drove 
to  labor,  the  First  Consul  brought  out  a  great  Civil  Code  (1804), 
The  Code  which  was  followed  by  a  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  a 
Napoleon  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  a  Penal  Code,  and  a 
Commercial  Code.  These  codes  were  of  the  utmost  importance. 
The  simplicity  and  elegance  of  their  form  commended  them 
not  only  to  France,  but  to  the  greater  part  of  continental  Europe. 
Moreover,  they  preserved  the  most  valuable  social  conquests 
of  the  Revolution,  such  as  ci\'il  equality,  religious  toleration, 
equahty  of  inheritance,  emancipation  of  serfs,  freedom  of  land, 
legal  arrest,  and  trial  by  jury.  It  is  true  that  many  harsh  pun- 
ishments were  retained  and  that  the  position  of  woman  was  made 
distinctly  inferior  to  that  of  man,  but,  on  the  whole,  the  French 
Codes  long  remained  not  only  the  most  convenient  but  the  most 
enlightened  set  of  laws  in  the  world.  Bonaparte  was  rightly 
hailed  as  a  second  Justinian. 

A  similar  motive  and  the  same  enthusiasm  actuated  the  First 
Consul  in  pressing  forward  important  educational  reforms. 
The  New  ^^  ^^^  foundation  laid  several  years  earlier  by  Con- 
Educational  dorcet  was  now  reared  an  imposing  system  of  public 
^^  ^™  instruction,  (i)  Primary  or  elementary  schools  were 
to  be  maintained  by  every  commune  under  the  general  super- 
vision of  the  prefects  or  sub-prefects.  (2)  Secondary  or  grammar 
schools  were  to  provide  special  training  in  French,  Latin,  and 
elementary  science,  and,  whether  supported  by  public  or  private 
enterprise,  were  to  be  subject  to  governmental  control.  (3)  Ly- 
cees  or    high  schools  were    to    be  opened    in  every    important 

^  Chief  among  these  legal  experts  was  Cambaccres  (1753-1824),  the  Second 
Consul. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  531 

town  and  instruction  given  in  the  higher  branches  of  learning 
by  teachers  appointed  by  the  state.  (4)  Special  schools,  such 
as  technical  schools,  civil  service  schools,  and  military  schools, 
were  brought  under  public  regulation.  (5)  The  University  of 
France  was  estabhshed  to  maintain  uniformity  throughout  the 
new  educational  system.  Its  chief  officials  were  appointed  by 
the  First  Consul,  and  no  one  might  open  a  new  school  or  teach 
in  public  unless  he  was  licensed  by  the  university.  (6)  The 
recruiting  station  for  the  teaching  staff  of  the  public  schools 
was  provided  in  a  normal  school  organized  in  Paris.  All  these 
schools  were  directed  to  take  as  the  bases  of  their  teaching 
the  principles  of  the  Cathohc  Church,  loyalty  to  the  head  of 
the  state,  and  obedience  to  the  statutes  of  the  university.  De- 
spite continued  efforts  of  Bonaparte,  the  new  system  was  handi- 
capped by  lack  of  funds  and  of  experienced  lay  teachers,  so  that 
at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  Era,  more  than  half  of  the  total 
number  of  French  children  still  attended  private  schools,  mostly 
those  conducted  by  the  Catholic  Church. 

Bonaparte  proved  himself  a  zealous  benefactor  of  public 
works  and  improvements.  With  very  moderate  expenditure  of 
French  funds,  for  prisoners  of  war  were  obliged  to  do  PubUc 
most  of  the  work,  he  enormously  improved  the  means  Works 
of  communication  and  trade  within  the  country,  and  promoted 
the  economic  welfare  of  large  classes  of  the  inhabitants.  The 
splendid  highways  which  modern  France  possesses  are  in  large 
part  due  to  Bonaparte.  In  181 1  he  could  enumerate  229  broad 
military  roads  which  he  had  constructed,  the  most  important 
of  which,  thirty  in  number,  radiated  from  Paris  to  the  extremi- 
ties of  the  French  territory.  Two  wonderful  Alpine  roads 
brought  Paris  in  touch  with  Turin,  Milan,  Rome,  and  Naples. 
Numerous  substantial  bridges  were  built.  The  former  net- 
work of  canals  and  waterways  was  perfected.  Marshes  were 
drained,  dikes  strengthened,  and  sand  dunes  hindered  from 
spreading  along  the  ocean  coast.  The  principal  seaports,  both 
naval  and  commercial,  were  enlarged  and  fortified,  especially 
the  harbors  of  Cherbourg  and  Toulon. 

Along  with  such  obviously  useful  labor  went  desirable  em- 
bellishment of  life.  State  palaces  were  restored  and  enlarged, 
so  that,  under  Bonaparte,  St.  Cloud,  Fontainebleau,  and  Ram- 


532  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

bouillet  came  to  rank  with  the  majesty  of  Versailles.  The 
city  of  Paris  was  beautified.  Broad  avenues  were  projected. 
The  Louvre  was  completed  and  adorned  with  precious  works  of 
art  which  Bonaparte  dragged  as  fruits  of  victory  from  Italy, 
or  Spain,  or  the  Netherlands.  During  the  Consulate,  Paris 
was  just  beginning  to  lay  claim  to  a  position  as  the  pleasure 
•  city  of  Europe.  Its  population  almost  doubled  during  the  Era 
of  Napoleon. 

The   First   Consul   also   entertained   the   hope   of   appearing 
as  the  restorer  of  the  French  colonial  empire.      In  1800  he  pre- 
vailed upon   the   Spanish  government  to  re-cede  to 

Colonial  ^  \  /  .°  „     ,    ^        .   . 

Enterprises  France  the  extensive  territory  —  called  Louisiana  — 
and  their  lying  west  of  the  Mississippi  River.  Soon  afterwards 
he  dispatched  his  brother-in-law.  General  Leclerc, 
with  an  army  of  25,000  men,  to  make  good  the  French  claims 
,  to  the  large  island  of  Haiti.  But  the  colonial  ventures  of  Na- 
poleon ended  in  failure.  In  Haiti,  Leclerc's  efforts  to  reestablish 
negro  slavery  encountered  the  stubborn  resistance  of  the  blacks, 
organized  and  led  by  one  of  their  number,  Toussaint  L'Ouver- 
ture,  a  remarkable  mihtary  genius.  After  a  determined  and 
often  ferocious  struggle  Leclerc  proposed  a  compromise,  and 
Toussaint,  induced  by  the  most  solemn  guarantees  on  the  part 
of  the  French,  laid  down  his  arms.  He  was  seized  and  sent  to 
France,  where  he  died  in  prison  in  1803.  The  negroes,  infuriated 
by  this  act  of  treachery,  renewed  the  war  with  a  barbarity  un- 
equaled  in  previous  contests.  The  French,  further  embarrassed 
by  the  appearance  of  a  British  fleet,  were  only  too  glad  to  relin- 
quish the  island  in  November,  1803.  Meanwhile,  expectation 
of  war  with  Great  Britain  had  induced  Bonaparte  in  April,  1803, 
to  sell  the  entire  Louisiana  Territory  to  the  United  States. 

If  we  except  these  brief  and  ill-starped  colonial  exploits,  we 
may  pronounce  the  First  Consul's  government  and  achieve- 
Success  ments  eminently  successful.  Bonaparte  had  inspired 
of  the  public  confidence  by  the  honesty  of  his  administration 

Consulate      ^^^^  ^^  j^-^  ^]^q[(.q  q^  officials,  for  he  was  served  by  such 

I  a  consummate  diplomat  as  Talleyrand  and  by  such  a  tireless 
chief  of  police  as  Fouche.  His  speedy  and  victorious  termination 
of  the  War  of  the  Second  Coalition  and  his  subsequent  apparent 
policy  of  peace  had  redounded  to  his  credit.     His  sweeping  and 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  533 

thorough  reforms  in  internal  affairs  had  attracted  to  his  support 
many  and  varied  classes  in  the  community  —  the  business  inter- 
ests, the  bourgeoisie,  the  peasantry,  and  the  sincere  Catholics. 

Only  two  groups  —  and  these  continually  dwindling  in  size 
and  importance  —  stood  in  the  way  of  Bonaparte's  complete 
mastery  of   France.     One  was   the   remnant   of   the  ^  .  ,.. 

Dwindling 

Jacobins  who  would  not  admit  that  the  Revolution   opposition 
was  ended.     The  other  was  the  royalist  party  which  *°  Bona- 

,  parte 

longed  to  undo  all  the  work  of  the  Revolution.     Both 

these  factions  were  reduced  during  the  Consulate  to  secret 
plots  and  intrigues.  Attempts  to  assassinate  the  First  Consul 
served  only  to  increase  his  popularity  among  the  masses.  Early 
in  1804  Bonaparte  unearthed  a  conspiracy  of  royalists,  whom 
he  punished  with  summary  vengeance.  General  Pichegru, 
who  was  implicated  in  the  conspiracy,  was  found  strangled  in 
prison  soon  after  his  arrest.  Moreau,  who  was  undoubtedly 
the  ablest  general  in  France  next  to  Bonaparte,  was  hkewise 
accused  of  complicity,  although  he  was  a  stanch  Jacobin,  and 
escaped  more  drastic  punishment  only  by  becoming  an  exile  in 
America.  Not  content  with  these  advantages,  Bonaparte  deter- 
mined thoroughly  to  terrorize  the  royalists :  by  military  force 
he  seized  a  young  Bourbon  prince,  the  due  d'Enghien,  on  Ger- 

I  man  soil,  and  without  a  particle  of  proof  against  him  put  him  to 

'  death. 

In  1802  a  plebiscite  had  bestowed  the  Consulate  on  Bonaparte 
.for  life.     Now  there  was  little  more  to  do  than  to  make  the 
ofhce  hereditary  and  to  change  its  name.     This  alter- 
ation was  proposed  in  1804  by  the  subservient  Senate  mat^on^of 
and  promptly  ratified  by  an  overwhelming  popular   the  Consu- 

,  r\  T~\  t.  o  •  1    •  •  late  into  the 

vote.     On   2   December,    1804,   amid  imposing  cere-  Empire 
monies  in  the  ancient  cathedral  of  Notre  Dame,  in  the 
presence  of  Pope  Pius  VII,  who  had  come  all  the  way  from  Rome 
to  grace  the  event,  General  Bonaparte  placed  a  crown  upon  his 
own  head  and  assumed  the  title  of  Napoleon  I,  emperor  of  the 
French. 


534  HISTORY   OF  MODERN  EUROPE    ' 

THE   FRENCH   EMPIRE   AND    ITS   TERRITORIAL 
EXPANSION 

The  establishment  of  the  empire  was  by  no  means  a  break 
The  in  French  history.     The  principle  of  popular  sover- 

French  eignty  was  still  recognized.     The  social  gains  of  the 

c^«nua-  Revolution  were  still  intact.  The  magic  words 
tionofthe  "Liberty,  EquaHty,  Fraternity"  still  blazed  proudly 
French  forth  on  pubHc  buildings.     The  tricolor  was  still  the 

RepubUc        flag  of  France. 

Of  course  a  few  changes  were  made  in  externals.  The  title 
of  "citoyen"  was  again  replaced  by  that  of  "monsieur." 
Lapse  of  '^^^  repubHcan  calendar  gradually  lapsed.  Napo- 
Repubiican  leon's  relatives  became  "grand  dignitaries."  The 
1  Institutions  j-gvolutionary  generals  who  accepted  the  new  regime 
;  were  promoted  to  be  "marshals  of  the  empire."  The  old  titles 
of  nobility  were  restored,  and  new  ones  created. 

The  outward  changes  in  France  were  reflected  in  the  dependent 

surrounding  states.     And  in  effecting  the  foreign  alterations, 

Napoleon  took  care  to  provide  for  his  numerous  family. 

Monarchical    _^,.,         ,  _        .,i        -r.,       •  t-,  it 

Alteration  For  liis  brother  Loms,  the  Batavian  Republic  was 
in  Depend-     transformed  into  the  kingdom  of  Holland.     For  his 

ent  States 

brother  Jerome,  estates  were  subsequently  carved  out 
of  Hanover,  Prussia,  and  other  northwest  German  lands  to  form 
the  kingdom  of  Westphaha.  Brother  Joseph  was  seated  on 
the  Bourbon  throne  of  the  Two  Sicihes.  The  Cisalpine  RepubHc 
became  the  kingdom  of  Italy  with  Napoleon  as  king,  and  Eugene 
Beauharnais,  his  stepson,  as  viceroy.  Both  Piedmont  and 
Genoa  were  incorporated  into  the  French  Empire. 

The  Consulate,  as  has  been  explained,  was  characterized  by 
a  policy  of  peace.  Sweeping  reforms  had  been  accomplished 
Censorship  ^^  internal  affairs  so  that  France  was  consolidated  and 
of  the  the  vast  majority  of  her   citizens  became   devoted 

Actwitro^f  supporters  of  the  emperor.  What  adverse  criticism 
the  Secret  Frenchmen  might  have  directed  against  the  empire 
^""'^^  was  stifled  by  the  activity  of  a  splendidly  organized 

secret  police  and  by  a  rigorous  censorship  of  the  press.     So 
'   complete  was  Napoleon's  control  of  the  state  that  the  decisive 
naval  defeat  of  Trafalgar  was  not  mentioned  by  a  single  French 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  535 

newspaper  until  after  the  fall  of  the  empire.     By  degrees  the 
imperial  despotism  of  the  Corsican  adventurer  became  as  rigid 
as  the  absolute  monarchy  of  the  Bourbons.     In  fact, 
Napoleon  went  so  far  as  to  adapt  an  old  catechism  Eventual 
which  the  celebrated  Bishop  Bossuet  had  prepared  Absolutism 

1      •  1  •  r  T        •     -I'TTr  1  1-1         o^  Napoleon 

during  the  reign  01  Louis  XIV  and  to  order  its  use  by 

all  children.     A  few  extracts  from  the  catechism  will  make  clear 

how  Napoleon  wished  to  be  regarded. 

"  Question.  What  are  the  duties  of  Christians  toward  those  who  govern 
them,  and  what  in  particular  are  our  duties  towards  Napoleon  I,  our 
emperor  ? 

"  Answer.  Christians  owe  to  the  princes  who  govern  them,  and  we  in 
particular  owe  to  Napoleon  I,  our  emperor,  love,  respect,  obedience,  fidelity, 
military  service,  and  the  taxes  levied  for  the  preservation  and  defense  of 
the  empire  and  of  his  throne.  We  also  owe  him  fervent  prayers  for  his 
safety  and  for  the  spiritual  and  temporal  prosperity  of  the  state. 

"  Question.     Why  are  we  subject  to  all  these  duties  toward  our  emperor  ? 

"  Answer.  First,  because  God,  who  has  created  empires  and  distributed 
them  according  to  His  will,  has,  by  loading  our  emperor  with  gifts  both  in 
peace  and  in  war,  established  him  as  our  sovereign  and  made  him  the 
agent  of  His  power  and  His  image  upon  earth.  To  honor  and  serve  our 
emperor  is,  therefore,  to  honor  and  serve  God  Himself.  Secondly,  because 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  both  by  His  teaching  and  His  example, 
has  taught  us  what  we  owe  to  our  sovereign.  Even  at  His  very  birth  He 
obeyed  the  edict  of  Ceesar  Augustus ;  He  paid  the  established  tax  and 
while  He  commanded  us  to  render  to  God  those  things  which  belong  to 
God,  He  also  commanded  us  to  render  unto  Ctesar  those  things  which  are 
Caesar's. 

"  Question.  WTiat  must  we  think  of  those  who  are  wanting  in  their 
duties  towards  our  emperor  ? 

''  Answer.  According  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  they  are  resisting  the  order 
established  by  God  Himself,  and  render  themselves  worthy  of  eternal 
damnation." 

With  opposition  crushed  in  France  and  with  the  loyalty  of 
the  French  nation  secured,  Napoleon  as  emperor  could  gratify 
his  natural  instincts  for  foreign  aggrandizement  and  Mmtary 
glory.  He  had  become  all-powerful  in  France ;  he  Ambition  of 
would  become  all-powerful  in  Europe.  Ambitious  ^^°  ^°" 
and  successful  in  the  arts  of  peace,  he  would  be  more  ambitious 
and  more  successful  in  the  science  of  war.  The  emxpire,  therefore, 
meant  war  quite  as  clearly  as  the  Consulate  meant  peace.     To 


536  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

speculate  upon  what  Napoleon  might  have  accomplished  for 
France  had  he  restrained  his  ambition  and  continued  to  apply 
his  talents  entirely  to  the  less  sensational  triumphs  of  peace,  is 
idle,  because  Napoleon  was  not  that  type  of  man.  He  lived 
.  for  and  by  selfish  ambition. 

The  ten  years  of  the  empire  (1804-1814)  were  attended  by 
continuous  warfare.  Into  the  intricacies  of  the  campaigns  it 
The  Empire  IS  neither  possible  nor  expedient  in  the  compass  of  this 
MUitary  chapter  to  enter.  It  is  aimed,  rather,  to  present  only 
such  features  of  the  long  struggle  as  are  significant  in  the  gen- 
eral history  of  Europe,  for  the  wars  of  Napoleon  served  a  pur- 
pose which  their  prime  mover  only  incidentally  had  at  heart  — 
the  transmission  of  the  revolutionary  heritage  to  Europe. 

When  the  empire  was  established,  war  between  France  and 
Great  Britain,  interrupted  by  the  truce  of  Amiens,  had  already 
Renewal  broken  forth  afresh.  The  struggle  had  begun  in  first 
of  War  instance  as  a  protest  of  the  British  monarchy  against 

France"nd    ^^^   excesses   of   the   French   Revolution,    especially 
Great  against  the  execution  of  Louis  XVI,  and  doubtless  the 

Bntain  |_^^|j,  ^^  ^j^^  Enghsh  nation  still  fancied  that  they  were 

fighting  against  revolution  as  personified  in  Napoleon  Bonaparte. 
But  to  the  statesmen  and  influential  classes  of  Great  Britain 
as  well  as  of  France,  the  conflict  had  long  assumed  a  deeper 
1   significance.     It  was  an  economic  and  commercial  war.     The 
'  British  not  only  were  mindful  of  the  assistance  which  France 
had  given  to  American  rebels,  but  also  were  resolved  that  France 
should  not  regain  the  colonial  empire  and  commercial  position 
which  she  had  lost  in  the  eighteenth  century.     The  British  had 
struggled  to  maintain  their  control  of  the  sea  and  the  monopoly 
of  trade  and  industry  which  attended  it.     Now,  when  Napoleon 
extended  the  French  influence  over  the  Netherlands  and  Hol- 
land, along  the  Rhine,  and  throughout  Italy,  and  even  succeeded 
in  negotiating  an  alliance  with  Spain,  Britain  was  threatened 
with  the  loss  of  valuable  commercial  privileges  in  all  those  regions, 
and  was  further  alarmed  by  the  ambitious  colonial  projects  of 
\  Napoleon.     In   May,    1803,   therefore,    Great   Britain   declared 
[war.     The  immediate  pretext  for  the  resumption  of  hostilities 
iwas  Napoleon's  positive  refusal  to  cease  interfering  in  Italy, 
'in  Switzerland,  and  in  Holland. 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  537 

Napoleon  welcomed  the  renewal  of  war.  He  understood  that 
until  he  had  comiilctel}'  broken  the  power  of  Great  Britain  all 
his  Continental  designs  were  imperiled  and  his  colonial  and 
commercial  projects  hopeless.  The  humiliation  of  the  great 
rival  across  the  Channel  would  be  the  surest  guarantee  of  the 
prosperity  of  the  French  bourgeoisie,  and  it  was  in  last  analysis 
from  that  class  that  his  own  political  support  was  chiefly  derived. 
The  year  1 803-1 804  was  spent  by  the  emperor  in  elaborate  prep- 
arations for  an  armed  invasion  of  England.  Along  the  Channel 
coast  were  gradually  collected  at  enormous  cost  a  host  of  trans- 
ports and  frigates,  a  considerable  army,  and  an  abundance  of 
supplies.  To  the  amazing  French  armament,  Spain  was  induced 
to  contribute  her  resources. 

Great  Britain  replied  to  these  preparations  by  covering  the 
Channel  with  a  superior  fleet,  by  preying  upon  French  commerce, 
and  by  seizing  Spanish  treasure-ships  from  America. 
And  William  Pitt,  the  very  embodiment  of  the  Eng-  coaution 
lishman's  prejudice  against  things  French,  returned  to  against 
the  ministry  of  his  country.     Pitt  was  unwilling  to 
risk  British  armies  against  the  veterans  of  Napoleon,  preferring 
to  spend  liberal  sums  of  money  in  order  to  instigate  the  Conti- 
nental Powers  to  combat  the  French  emperor.     Pitt  was  the  real 
bone  and  sinews  of  the  Third  Coalition,  which  was  formed  in 
1805  by  Great  Britain,  Austria,  Russia,  and  Sweden  to  over- 
throw Napoleon. 

Austria  naturally  smarted  under  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
of  Luneville  quite  as  much  as  under  those  of  Campo  Formio. 
Francis  II  was  aroused  by  French  predominance  in  Italy  and 
now  that  he  himself  had  added  the  title  of  "hereditary  emperor 
of  Austria"  to  his  shadowy  dignity  as  "Holy  Roman  Emperor" 
he  was  irritated  by  the  upstart  Napoleon's  assumption  of  an 
imperial  title. 

In  Russia  the  assassination  of  the  Tsar  Paul,  the  crazy  ad- 
mirer of  Bonaparte,  had  called  to  the  throne  in  1801  the  active 
though  easily  influenced  Alexander  I.  In  early  life  Alexander 
had  acquired  a  pronounced  taste  for  revolutionary  philosophy 
and  its  liberal  ideas,  and  hkewise  a  more  or  less  theoretical  love 
of  humanity.  Now,  Pitt  persuaded  him,  with  the  assistance  of 
English  gold,  that  Napoleon  was  the  enemy  both  of  true  liberty 


538  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

and  of  humanity.  So  the  tsar  joined  his  army  with  that  of 
Austria,  and  in  the  autumn  of  1805  the  alHes  advanced  through 
southern  Germany  toward  the  Rhine. 

Pitt  had  done  his  best  to  bring  Prussia  into  the  coalition, 
but  the  Prussian  king,  Frederick  WilHam  III  (i 797-1840),  was 
timid  and  irresolute,  and,  despite  the  protests  of  his  people,  was 
cajoled  by  Napoleon's  offer  of  Hanover  into  a  declaration  of 
neutrahty.  Bavaria  and  Wiirttemberg,  from  fear  of  Austria, 
became  open  allies  of  the  French  emperor. 

Before  the  troops  of  the  Third  Coalition  could  threaten  the 
eastern  frontier  of  France,  Napoleon  abandoned  his  military 
Napoleon  projects  against  Great  Britain,  broke  up  his  huge 
vs.  Austria  armaments  along  the  Atlantic  coast,  and,  with  his 
usual  rapidity  of  march,  hurled  his  finely  trained  army  upon 
the  Austrians  near  the  town  of  Ulm  in  Wiirttemberg.  There, 
on  20  October,  1805,  the  Austrian  commander,  with  some  50,000 
men,  surrendered,  and  the  road  to  Vienna  was  open  to  the 
French. 

This   startling   military   success   was   followed   on   the   very 

next  day  by  a  naval  defeat  quite  as  sensational  and  even  more 

^   ,  ,  decisive.     On  21  October,  the  allied  French  and  Span- 

Trafalgar       .  ,  .  ^ 

(1805)  and     ish  fleets,  issuing  from  the  harbor  of  Cadiz,  encoun- 

the  Con-        tcred  the  British  fleet  under  Lord  Nelson,  and  in  a 

tinued  Sea 

Power  of       terrific   battle   off   Cape   Trafalgar  were   completely 

Great  worsted.     Lord  Nelson  lost  his  life  in  the  conflict, 

but  from  that  day  to  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  Era 

British  supremacy  on  the  high  seas  was  not  seriously  challenged. 

Wasting  no  tears  or  time  on  the  decisive  loss  of  sea-power, 
Napoleon  hastened  to  follow  up  his  land  advantages.  Occupy- 
Austeriitz,  ing  Vienna,  he  turned  northward  into  Moravia  where 
1805  Francis  II  and  Alexander  I  had  gathered  a  large  army 

of  Austrians  and  Russians.  On  2  December,  1805,  the  anni- 
versary of  his  coronation  as  emperor,  —  his  "lucky"  day,  as 
he  termed  it,  —  Napoleon  overwhelmed  the  allies  at  Austerlitz 
in  one  of  the  greatest  battles  in  history. 

The  immediate  result  of  the  campaign  of  Ulm  and  Austerlitz 
was  the  enforced  withdrawal  of  Austria  from  the  Third  Coalition. 
Late  in  December,  1805,  the  emperors  Francis  II  and  Napoleon 
signed    the    treaty    of    Pressburg,  whereby  the   former   ceded 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  539 

Venetia  to  the  kingdom  of  Italy  and  recognized  Napoleon  as 
its  king,  and  resigned  the  Tyrol  to  Bavaria,  and  outlying  prov- 
inces in  western   Germany   to  Wiirttemberg.      Both 
Bavaria    and    Wiirttemberg    were    converted    into  ^ustda^ 
kingdoms.      By    the    humiliating    treaty    of    Press-  Treaty  of 
j  burg,    Austria    thus    lost    3,000,000    subjects    and   ^g^^^  ^^^' 
'  large    revenues ;    was  cut    off    from  Italy,   Switzer- 
land, and  the  Rhine ;  and  was  reduced  to  the  rank  of  a  second- 
rate  power. 

For  a  time  it  seemed  as  if  the  withdrawal  of  Austria  from 
the  Third   Coalition  would   be  fully  compensated  for  by  the 
adhesion  of  Prussia.     Stung  by  the  refusal  of  Napoleon  Napoleon 
to  withdraw  his  troops  from  southern  Germany  and  ^^-  Prussia, 
by  the  bootless  haggling  over  the  transference  of  Hanover,  and 
goaded  on  by  his  patriotic  and  high-spirited  wife,  the  beautiful 
Queen  Louise,  timid  Frederick  William  III  at  length  ventured 
in  1806  to  declare  war  against  France.     Then,  with  a  ridiculously 
misplaced  confidence  in  the  old-time  reputation  of  Frederick  the 
Great,  without  waiting  for  assistance  from  the  Russians  who  were 
I  coming  up,  the  Prussian  army- — some  110,000  strong,  under 
\  the  old-fashioned  duke  of  Brunswick  —  advanced  against  the 
1  150,000  veterans  of  Napoleon.     The  resulting  battle 
lof  Jena,  on  14  October,   1806,  proved  the  absolute  and^the  ° 
^superiority  of  Napoleon's  strategy  and  of  the  enthusi-  Humiiia- 
astic  French  soldiers  over  the  older  tactics  and  mili-  p^issia 
tary  organization  of   the  Prussians.     Jena  was  not 
]  merely  a  defeat  for  the  Prussians ;   it  was  at  once  a  rout  and  a 
'total  collapse  of  that  Prussian  mihtary  prestige  which  in  the 
course  of  the  eighteenth  century  had  been  gained  by  the  utmost 
sacrifice.     Napoleon  entered  BerHn  in  triumph  and  took  posses- 
sion of  the  greater  part  of  the  kingdom  of  Prussia. 

The  Russians  still  remained  to  be  dealt  with.     Winter  was 
a  bad  season  for  campaigning  in  East  Prussia,  and  it  was  not 
until  June,   1807,  at  Friedland,  that  Napoleon  was  Napoleon 
able  to  administer  the  same  kind  of  a  defeat  to  the  vs.  Russia, 
Russians  that  he  had  administered  to  the  Austrians 
at  Austerhtz  and  to  the  Prussians  at  Jena.     The  Tsar  Alexander 
at  once  sued  for  peace.     At  Tilsit,  on  a  raft  moored  in  the  middle 
of  the  River  Niemen,  Napoleon  and  Alexander  met  and  ar- 


540  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

I  ranged  the  terms  of  peace   for   France,   Russia,  and   Prussia. 

The  impressionable  tsar  was  dazzled  by  the  striking  personality 

Treaty  of       ^^^^  ^^^  Unexpected  magnanimity  of  the  emperor  of 

Tilsit  the  French.     Hardly  an  inch  of  Russian  soil  was  ex- 

Ditsoiution     ^-Cted,    Only    a   promise    to    cooperate    in    excluding 

of  the  Third  British   trade  from   the   Continent.     Alexander  was 

°^  *^°°        accorded  full  permission   to  deal  as  he  would  with 

I   Finland  and  Turkey.     "What  is  Europe?"  exclaimed  the  emo- 

'  tional  tsar  :  "Where  is  it,  if  it  is  not  you  and  I?"     But  Prussia 

had  to  pay  the  price  of  the  alliance  between  French  and  Russian 

emperors.      From  Prussia  was  torn  the  portion  of  Poland  which 

was  erected  into  the  grand-duchy  of  Warsaw,  under  Napoleon's 

;  obsequious  ally,  the  elector  of  Saxony.     Despoiled  altogether  of 

\  half  of  her  territories,  compelled  to  reduce  her  army  to  42,000  men, 

'  and  forced  to  maintain  French  troops  on  her  remaining  lands  until 

a  large  war  indemnity  was  paid,  Prussia  was  reduced  to  the  rank 

of   a  third-rate   power.     Tilsit  destroyed   the   Third  Coalition 

and   made   Napoleon   master  of   the   Continent.     Only    Great 

Britain  and  Sweden  remained  under  arms,  and  against  the  latter 

country  Napoleon  was  now  able  to  employ  both  Denmark  and 

Russia. 

Early  in  1808  a  Russian  army  crossed  the  Finnish  border 
without  any  previous  declaration  of  war,  and  simultaneously  a 
HumiUation  Danish  force  prepared  to  invade  Sweden  from  the 
of  Sweden  Norwegian  frontier.  The  ill-starred  Swedish  king, 
Gustavus  IV  (1792-1809),  found  it  was  all  he  could  do,  even  with 
British  assistance,  to  fight  off  the  Danes.  The  little  Finnish 
army,  left  altogether  unsupported,  succumbed  after  an  heroic 
struggle  against  overwhelming  odds,  and  in  1809  the  whole  of 
Finland  and  the  Aland  Islands  were  formally  ceded  to  Russia. 
Finland,  however,  did  not  enter  Russia  as  a  conquered  province, 
but,  thanks  to  the  bravery  of  her  people  and  not  less  to  the  wisdom 
and  generosity  of  the  Tsar  Alexander,  she  long  maintained  her 
free  constitution  and  was  recognized  as  a  semi-independent 
grand-duchy  with  the  Russian  tsar  as  grand-duke.  Thus  Sweden 
lost  her  ancient  duchy  of  Finland,  and  she  was  permitted  to 
retain  a  small  part  of  Pomerania  only  at  the  humiliating  price 
of  making  peace  with  Napoleon  and  excluding  British  goods 
from  all  her  ports.     In  the  same  year,  Gustavus  IV  was  com- 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  541 

pelled  to  abdicate  in  favor  of  his  uncle,  Charles  XTTI  (1809- 
1818),  an  inlirm  and  childless  old  man,  who  was  prevailed  upon 
to  designate  as  his  successor  one  of  Napoleon's  own  marshals. 
General  Bcrnadotte.  Surely,  Napoleon  might  hope  henceforth 
to  dominate  Sweden  as  he  then  dominated  every  other  Conti- 
nental state.  Of  course,  Creat  Britain,  triumphant  on  the  seas, 
remained  unconquered,  l)ut  the  British  army,  the  laughing- 
stock of  Europe,  could  expect  to  achieve  little  where  Austria, 
Prussia,  Russia,  and  Sweden  had  failed. 

The  year  that  followed  Tilsit  may  be  taken  as  marking  the 
height  of  Napoleon's  carper.  The  Corsican  adventurer  was 
emperor  of  a  France  that  extended  from  the  Po  to  the  Height  of 
North  Sea,  from  the  Pyrenees  and  the  Papal  States  Napoleon's 
to  the  Rhine,  a  France  united,  patriotic,  and  in  enjoy-  °^^'^'  ^ 
ment  of  many  of  the  fruits  of  the  Revolution.  He  was  king  of 
an  Italy  that  embraced  the  fertile  valley  of  the  Po  and  the  ancient 
possessions  of  Venice,  and  that  was  administered  by  a  viceroy, 
his  stepson  and  heir-apparent,  Eugene  Beauharnais.  The 
pope  was  his  friend  and  ally.  His  brother  Joseph  governed  the 
kingdom  of  Naples.  His  brother  Louis  and  his  stepdaughter 
Hortense  were  king  and  queen  of  Holland.  His  sister  Elise  was 
princess  of  the  diminutive  state  of  Lucca.  The  kings  of  Spain 
and  Denmark  were  his  admirers  and  the  tsar  of  Russia  now 
called  him  friend  and  brother.  A  restored  Poland  was  a  recruit- 
ing station  for  his  army.  Prussia  and  Austria  had  become 
second-  or  third-rate  powers,  and  French  influence  once  more 
predominated  in  the  Germanics. 

It  was  in  the  Germanics,  in  fact,  that  Napoleon's  achieve- 
ments were  particularly  striking.     Before  his  magic  touch  many 
of  the  antique  political  and  social  institutions  of  that  p  ^     ^ 
country  crumbled  away.     As  early  as  1801  the  diminu-  changes 
tion  of  the  number  of  German  states  had  begun.      The  'i*  ^^^    . 

°  ,  Germames 

treaty  of  Luneville  had  made  imperative  some  action 
on  the  part  of  the  Diet  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  in  order  to 
indemnify  the  rulers  whose  lands  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rhine 
had  been  incorporated  into  France,  and  to  grant "  compensa- 
tions" to  the  south  German  states.  After  laborious  negotia- 
tions, lasting  from  1801  to  1803,  the  Diet  authorized  ^  the  whole- 

'  By  a  decree,  called  the  Reichsdeputationshauptschluss. 


542  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

sale  confiscation  throughout  southern  Germany  of  ecclesiastical 
lands  and  of  free  cities,  with  the  result  that  112  formerly  inde- 
pendent states  lying  east  of  the  Rhine  were  wiped  out  of  existence 
and  nearly  one  hundred  others  on  the  west  bank  were  added 
to  France.  Thus  the  number  of  the  Germanics  was  suddenly 
reduced  from  more  than  three  hundred  to  less  than  one  hundred, 
and  the  German  states  which  mainly  benefited,  along  with 
Prussia,  were  the  southern  states  of  Bavaria,  Wiirttemberg, 
and  Baden,  which  Napoleon  desired  to  use  as  an  equipoise 
against  both  Austria  and  Prussia.  In  this  ambition  he  was 
not  disappointed,  for  in  the  War  of  the  Third  Coalition  (1805) 
he  received  important  assistance  from  these  three  states,  all  of 
which  were  in  turn  liberally  rewarded  for  their  services,  the 
rulers  of  Bavaria  and  Wiirttemberg  being  proclaimed  kings. 

The  year  1806  was  epochal  in  German  history.  On  19  July, 
the  Confederation  of  the  Rhine  was  formally  established  with 
Napoleon  as  Protector.  The  kings  of  Bavaria  and 
Extinction  Wiirttemberg,  the  grand-dukes  of  Baden,  Hesse- 
HoWRoman  Darmstadt,  and  Berg,  the  archbishop  of  Mainz,  and 
Empire  nine  minor  princes  virtually  seceded  from  the  Holy 

its  Replace-  Roman  Empire  and  accepted  the  protection  of  Na- 
ment  by  the  poleon,  whom  they  pledged  themselves  to  support 
Austria  °  with  an  army  of  63,000  men.  On  i  August,  Napoleon 
and  the  declared  that  he  no  longer  recognized  the  Holy  Roman 
tion^ofthe  Empire,  and  on  6  August  the  Habsburg  emperor, 
Rhine  Francis  II,  resigned  the  crown  which  his  ancestors  for 

centuries  had  worn.  The  work  of  a  long  line  of  French 
kings  and  statesmen, —  Francis  I,  Henry  IV,  Richeheu,  Mazarin, 
Louis  XIV, —  was  thus  consummated  by  Napoleon  Bonaparte. 
The  Holy  Roman  Empire  had  at  last  come  to  the  inglorious 
end  which  it  had  long  deserved.  And  its  last  emperor  had  to 
content  himself  with  his  newly  appropriated  title  of  Francis  I, 
Hereditary  Emperor  of  Austria.  The  dignity  and  might  of 
the  proud  Habsburgs  had  declined  before  a  mere  upstart  of  the 
people  as  never  before  a  royal  Bourbon.  And  this  same  year, 
1806,  witnessed,  as  we  have  seen,  not  only  the  humihation  of 
Austria  but  the  deepest  degradation  of  Prussia. 

By  1808  all  the  Germanics  were  at  the  mercy  of  Napoleon. 
Prussia  was  shorn  of  half  her  possessions  and  forced  to  obey  the 


^Tj 7 

I  (/    *  4  ,  A- 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  543 

behests  of  her  conqueror.  The  Confederation  of  the  Rhine 
was  enlarged  and  soHdilied.  A  kingdom  of  Westphaha  was 
carved  out  of  northern  and  western  Germany  at  the  expense  of 
Prussia,  Hanover,  Brunswick,  and  Hesse,  and  bestowed  upon 
Jerome,  brother  of  Napoleon.  The  grand-duchy  of  Berg  was 
governed  by  the  Protector's  plebeian  brother-in-law,  Joachim 
Murat.  And,  greatest  fact  of  all,  wherever  the  French  emperor's 
rule  extended,  there  followed  the  abolition  of  feudalism  and 
serfdom,  the  recognition  of  equality  of  all  citizens  before  the  law, 
the  principles  and  precepts  of  the  Code  Napoleon. 

This  was  the  true  apogee  of  Napoleon's  power.  From  the 
November  day  in  1799  when  the  successful  general  had  over- 
thrown the  corrupt  and  despicable  Directory  down  to 
1808,  his  story  is  a  magnihcent  succession  of  the  -fheSon 
triumphs  of  peace  and  of  war.  Whatever  be  the  of  the 
judgment  of  his  contemporaries  or  of  posterity  upon  tion'''"' 
his  motives,  there  can  be  little  question  that  through- 
out these  nine  years  he  appeared  to  France  and  to  Europe  what 
he  proclaimed  himself  —  "the  son  of  the  Revolution."  He 
it  was  who  in  the  lull  between  the  combats  of  the  Second  Coali- 
tion and  those  of  the  Third  had  consolidated  the  work  of  the 
democratic  patriots  from  Mirabeau  to  Carnot  and  had  assured 
to  France  the  permanent  fruits  of  the  Revolution  in  the  domains 
of  property,  law,  rehgion,  education,  administration,  and  finance. 
He  it  was  who,  if  narrowing  the  concept  of  Hberty,  had  broad- 
ened the  significance  of  equahty  by  the  very  lesson  of  his  own 
rise  to  power  and  had  deepened  the  meaning  of  fraternity  by 
lavishing  affection  and  devotion  upon  that  machine  of  democ- 
racy—  the  national  army  —  the  "nation  in  arms."  And  he 
it  was  who,  true  to  the  revolutionary  tradition  of  striking  terror 
into  the  hearts  of  the  divine-right  monarchs  of  Europe,  had 
with  a  mighty  noise  shaken  the  whole  Continent  and  brought 
down  the  political  and  social  institutions  of  the  "old  regime" 
tumbhng  in  ruins  throughout  central  and  southern  Europe. 
He  had  made  revolutionary  reform  too  solid  and  too  widespread 
to  admit  of  its  total  extinction  by  the  alhed  despots  of  Europe. 
The  dream  which  a  Leopold  and  a  Frederick  William  had  cher- 
ished in  1 791  of  turning  back  the  hands  on  the  clock  of  human 
progress  and  of  restoring  conditions  in  France  as  they  had  been 


544  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

prior  to  1789,  was  happily  dispelled.  But  in  the  meantime 
the  despots  were  to  have  their  innings. 

DESTRUCTION  OF  THE   FRENCH  EMPIRE 

From  1808  to  18 14  —  six  dreadful  years  —  Napoleon's  power 
was  constantly  on  the  wane.  Nor  are  the  reasons  for  his  ulti- 
mate failure  difficult  to  perceive.  Some  of  the  very 
in  the  ^^^^  elements  which  had  contributed  most  to  the  up- 
French  building  of  his  great  empire  with  its  dependent  king- 
of™Napoieon  doms  and  duchies  were  in  the  long  run  elements  of 
weakness  and  instabihty  —  vital  causes  of  its  eventual 
downfall.  In  the  first  place,  there  was  the  factor  of  individual 
genius.  Altogether  too  much  depended  upon  the  physical  and 
mental  strength  of  one  man.  Napoleon  was  undoubtedly  a 
genius,  but  still  he  was  human.  He  was  growing  older,  more 
I.  Napoleon  corpulent,  Icss  able  to  withstand  exertion  and  fatigue, 
Himself  fonder  of  affluence  and  ease.  On  the  other  hand,  every 
fresh  success  had  confirmed  his  belief  in  his  own  ability  and  had 
further  whetted  his  appetite  for  power  until  his  ambition  was 
growing  into  madness  and  his  egotism  was  becoming  mania. 
His  aversion  from  taking  the  advice  of  others  increased  so  that 
even  the  subtle  intriguers,  Talleyrand  and  Fouche,  were  less 
and  less  admitted  to  his  confidence.  The  emperor  would  brook 
the  appearance  of  no  actor  on  the  French  stage  other  than  him- 
self, although  on  that  stage  during  those  crowded  years  there 
was  too  much  for  a  single  emperor,  albeit  a  master  emperor,  to  do. 

The  second  serious  defect  in  the  Napoleonic  system  was  the 
fact  that  its  very  foundation  was  military.  What  had  enabled 
2  Defects  ^^^  National  Convention  in  the  days  of  the  Revolu- 
of  MUita-  tion's  darkest  peril  to  roll  back  the  tide  of  foreign 
"^°^  invasion  was  the  heroism  and  devotion  of  an  enthusi- 

astic citizen  soldiery,  actuated  by  a  solemn  consciousness  that 
in  a  very  literal  sense  they  were  fighting  for  their  fields  and  fire- 
sides, for  the  rights  of  men  and  of  Frenchmen.  They  constituted 
compact  and  homogeneous  armies,  inspired  by  the  principles 
and  words  of  Rouget  de  Lisle's  rousing  battle  hymn,  and  they 
smote  the  hired  troopers  of  the  banded  despots  hip  and  thigh. 
It  was  this  kind  of  an  army  which  Napoleon  Bonaparte  took 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  545 

over  and  wliich  had  earned  for  him  liis  first  spectacular  successes. 
He  certainly  tried  to  preserve  its  Revolutionary  enthusiasm 
throughout  his  career.  He  talked  much  of  its  ''mission"  and 
its  "destiny,"  of  liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity,  and  he  kept 
alive  its  traditions  of  heroism  and  duty.  He  even  improved  its 
discipline,  its  material  well-being,  and  its  honor.  But  gradually, 
almost  imperceptibly,  the  altruistic  ideals  of  the  Revolution 
gave  way  in  the  French  army  to  the  more  selfish  and  more  Na- 
poleonic ideal  of  glamour  and  glory.  And  as  years  passed  by 
and  the  deadly  campaigns  repeated  themselves  and  the  number 
of  patriotic  volunteers  lessened,  Napoleon  resorted  more  and 
more  to  conscription  —  forcibly  taking  away  thousands  of  young 
Frenchmen  from  peaceful  and  productive  pursuits  at  home  and 
strewing  their  bones  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
Continent. 

Nor  did  Napoleon's  army  remain  homogeneous.  To  the  last 
its  kernel  was  French,  but,  as  the  empire  expanded  and  other 
peoples  were  brought  into  a  dependent  or  allied  posi-  ^  Reaction 
tion,  it  came  to  include  regiments  or  companies  of  of  National- 
Poles,  Germans,  Italians,  Dutch,  Spaniards,  and  Danes. 
In  its  newer  heterogeneous  condition  it  tended  the  more  to  lose 
its  original  character  and  to  assume  that  of  an  enormous  machine- 
like conglomeration  of  mercenaries  who  followed  the  fortunes  of 
a  despot  more  tyrannical  and  more  dangerous  than  any  of  the 
despots  against  whom  it  had  at  first  been  pitted.  It  is  true  that 
many  of  the  Frenchmen  who  composed  the  kernel  of  the  Grand 
Army  still  entertained  the  notion  that  they  were  fighting  for 
liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity,  and  that  their  contact  with  their 
fellow-soldiers  and  likewise  with  their  enemies  was  a  most  effec- 
tive means  of  communicating  the  revolutionary  doctrines  to 
Europe,  but  it  is  also  true  that  Napoleon's  policy  of  quartering 
his  troops  upon  the  lands  of  his  enemies  or  of  his  alHes,  and 
thereby  conserving  the  resources  of  his  own  country,  operated 
to  develop  the  utmost  hatred  for  the  French,  for  the  Revolution, 
and  for  Napoleon.  This  hatred  produced,  particularly  in  Ger- 
many and  in  Spain,  a  real  patriotic  feeling  among  the  masses 
of  the  exploited  nations,  so  that  those  very  peoples  to  whom 
the  notions  of  liberty  and  equality  had  first  come  as  a  blessed 
promise  of  deliverance  from  the  oppression  of  their  own  divine- 

2N 


546  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

right  rulers  now  used  the  same  notions  to  justify  them  in  rising 
as  nations  against  the  despotism  of  a  foreign  mihtary  oppressor. 
Liberty,  equahty,  and  fraternity  —  the  gospel  of  the  Revolu- 
tion —  was  the  boomerang  which  Napoleon  by  means  of  his 
army  hurled  against  the  European  tyrants  and  which  returned 
with  redoubled  force  against  him. 

It  was  thus  the  character  of  the  emperor  himself  and  his 
military  exigencies  that,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  so-called 
4.  " The  "  Continental  System"  and  the  national  revolts,  made 
Continental  Napoleon's  empire  but  an  episode  in  the  story  of 
ys  em  modern  times.  It  is  now  time  to  explain  the  Conti- 
nental System  and  then  to  see  how  it  reacted  throughout  Europe 
upon  the  feehng  of  national  patriotism  to  bring  about  the  down- 
fall of  the  Corsican  adventurer. 

"Continental  System"  is  the  term  commonly  apphed  to  the 
curious  character  which  the  warfare  between  Napoleon  and 
Great  Britain  gradually  assumed.  By  1806  the  inter- 
Economic  esting  situation  had  developed  that  Great  Britain  was 
^f  indisputable  mistress  of  the  seas  while  Napoleon  was 

between  ,  .     ,. 

Great  no  less  mdisputable  master  of  the  Continent.     The 

Britain  battles  of  the  Nile,  of  Copenhagen,  and  of  Trafalgar 

had  been  to  the  British  what  those  of  Marengo,  Aus- 
terlitz,  and  Jena  had  been  to  the  French.  On  one  hand  the 
destruction  of  the  French  fleet,  together  with  the  Danish,  Dutch, 
and  Spanish  squadrons,  had  effectually  prevented  Napoleon 
from  carrying  into  practice  his  long-cherished  dream  of  invading 
England.  On  the  other  hand,  the  British  army  was  not  strong 
enough  to  cope  successfully  with  Napoleon  on  land,  and  the 
European  Powers  which  all  along  had  been  subsidized  by  Eng- 
hsh  gold  had  been  cowed  into  submission  by  the  French  emperor. 
Apparently  neither  France  nor  Great  Britain  could  strike  each 
other  by  ordinary  military  means,  and  yet  neither  would  sue 
for  peace.  WiUiam  Pitt  died  in  January,  1806,  heart-broken 
by  the  news  of  Austerlitz,  the  ruin  of  all  his  hopes.  Charles 
James  Fox,  the  gifted  Whig,  who  thereupon  became  British 
foreign  secretary,  was  foiled  in  a  sincere  attempt  to  negotiate 
peace  with  Napoleon,  and  died  in  September  of  the  same  year, 
despairing  of  any  amicable  settlement. 

The  brilliant  French  victory  at  Jena  in  October,  1806,  seemed 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  547 

to  till  the  British  as  well  as  the  Prussian  cup  to  overflowing. 
The  very  next  month  Napoleon  followed  up  his  successes  by 
inaugurating  a  thoroughgoing  campaign  against  his  arch-enemy, 
Great  Britain  herself ;  but  the  campaign  was  to  be  conducted 
in  the  field  of  economics  rather  than  in  the  purview  of  military 
science.  England,  it  must  be  remembered,  had  become,  thanks 
to  the  long  series  of  dynastic  and  colonial  wars  that  filled  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  the  chief  commercial 
nation  of  the  world :  she  had  a  larger  number  of  citizens  who 
made  their  living  as  ship-owners,  sailors,  and  traders  than  any 
other  country  in  the  world.  Then,  too,  as  we  shall  see  in  a  sub- 
sequent chapter,  it  was  in  the  England  of  the  eighteenth  century 
that  the  Industrial  Revolution  began, —  a  marvelous  improve- 
ment in  manufacturing,  which  fostered  the  growth  of  a  powerful 
industrial  class  and  enabled  the  English  to  make  goods  more 
cheaply  and  in  greater  profusion  and  to  sell  them  more  readily, 
at  lower  prices,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  than  any  other  people 
in  the  world.  Industry  was  fast  becoming  the  basis  of  Great 
Britain's  wealth,  and  the  commercial  classes  were  acquiring 
new  strength  and  influence.  It  was,  therefore,  against  "a 
nation  of  shopkeepers,"  as  Napoleon  contemptuously  dubbed 
the  English,  that  he  must  direct  his  new  campaign. 

To  Napoleon's  clear  and  logical  mind,  the  nature  of  the  problem 
was  plain.  Deprived  of  a  navy  and  unable  to  utilize  his  splendid 
army,  he  must  attack  Great  Britain  in  what  appeared  to  be  her 
one  vulnerable  spot  —  in  her  commerce  and  industry.  If  he 
could  prevent  the  importation  of  British  goods  into  the  Con- 
tinent, he  would  deprive  his  rivals  of  the  chief  markets  for  their 
products,  ruin  British  manufacturers,  throw  thousands  of  Brit- 
ish workingmen  out  of  employment,  create  such  hard  times  in 
the  British  Islands  that  the  mass  of  the  people  would  rise  against 
their  government  and  compel  it  to  make  peace  with  him  on  his 
own  terms :  in  a  word,  he  would  ruin  British  commerce  and  in- 
dustry and  then  secure  an  advantageous  peace.  It  was  a  gigan- 
tic gamble,  for  Napoleon  must  have  perceived  that  the  Con- 
tinental peoples  might  themselves  oppose  the  closure  of  their 
ports  to  the  cheaper  and  better  manufactured  articles  of  Great 
Britain  and  might  respond  to  a  common  economic  impulse  and 
rise  in  force  to  compel  him  to  make  peace  on  British  terms,  but 


548  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  stakes  were  high  and  the  emperor  of  the  French  was  a  good 
gambler.  From  1806  to  181 2  the  struggle  between  Napoleon 
and  Great  Britain  was  an  economic  endurance-test.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  question  was  whether  the  British  government 
could  retain  the  support  of  the  British  people.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  question  was  whether  Napoleon  could  rely  upon  the 
cooperation  of  the  whole  Continent. 

The  Continental  System  had  been  foreshadowed  under  the  Di- 
rectory and  in  the  early  years  of  the  Consulate,  but  it  was  not 
The  Berlin  Until  the  Berlin  Decree  (November,  1806)  that  the 
and  Milan  first  great  attempt  was  made  to  define  and  enforce 
ecrees  -^  j^  ^j^j^  decree,  Napoleon  proclaimed  a  state  of 
blockade  against  the  British  Isles  and  closed  French  and  allied 
ports  to  ships  coming  from  Great  Britain  or  her  colonies.  The 
Berlin  Decree  was  subsequently  strengthened  and  extended  by 
decrees  at  Warsaw  (January,  1807),  Milan  (December,  1807), 
and  Fontainebleau  (October,  18 10).  The  Milan  Decree  pro- 
vided that  even  neutral  vessels  saihng  from  any  British  port  or 
from  countries  occupied  by  British  troops  might  be  seized  by 
French  warships  or  privateers.  The  Fontainebleau  Decree 
went  so  far  as  to  order  the  confiscation  and  public  burning  of 
all  British  manufactured  goods  found  in  the  Napoleonic  States. 

To  these  imperial  decrees  the  British  government,  now  largely 
dominated  by  such  statesmen  as  Lord  Castlereagh  and  George 
The  Orders  Canning,  rephed  with  celebrated  Orders  in  Council 
in  CouncU  (January-November,  1807),  which  declared  all  vessels 
trading  with  France  or  her  allies  liable  to  capture  and  provided 
further  that  in  certain  instances  neutral  vessels  must  touch  at 
a  British  port.  Thus  the  issue  was  squarely  joined.  Napoleon 
would  suffer  no  importation  of  British  goods  whether  by  com- 
batants or  by  neutrals.  The  British  would  allow  none  but 
themselves  to  trade  with  France  and  her  allies.  In  both  cases 
the  neutrals  would  be  the  worst  sufferers.  The  effects  of  the 
conflict  were  destined  to  be  far-reaching. 

The  British  by  virtue  of  their  sea-power  could  come  nearer 
to  enforcing  their  Orders  in  Council  than  could  Napoleon  to 
giving  full  effect  to  his  imperial  decrees.  Of  course  they  had 
their  troubles  with  neutrals.  The  stubborn  effort  of  Denmark 
to  preserve  its  independence  of  action  in  politics  and  trade  was 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  549 

frustrated  in  1807  when  a  British  expedition  bombarded  Copen- 
hagen and  seized  the  remnant  of  the  Danish  navy.     From  that 
time  until  18 14  Denmark  was  naturally  a  stanch  ally 
of  Napoleon.     Against  the  Americans,  too,  who  took  jn  M^n'^^ 
advantage  of  the  Continental  System  to  draw  into  taining  the 
their  own  hands  a  liberal  portion  of   the    carrying  system"  ^ 
trade,  the  British  vigorously  applied  the  Orders  in 
Council,  and  the  consequent  ill-feeling  culminated  in  the  War 
of   181 2  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.     But 
on  the  whole,  the  British  had  less  trouble  with  neutrals  than  did 
Napoleon.     And  compared  with  the  prodigious  hardships  which 
the  System  imposed  upon  the  Continental  peoples  and  the  conse- 
quent storms  of  popular  opposition  to  its  author,  the  contem- 
poraneous distress  in  England  was  never  acute ;   and  the  British 
nation  at  large  never  seriously  wavered  in  affording  moral  and 
material  support  to  their  hard-pressed  government. 

Here  was  the  failure  of  Napoleon.  It  proved  physically 
impossible  for  him  to  extend  the  Continental  System  widely 
and  thoroughly  enough  to  gain  his  point.  In  many  cases,  to 
stave  off  opposition,  he  authorized  exceptions  to  his  own  decrees. 
If  he  could  have  prevailed  upon  every  Continental  state  to  close 
its  ports  to  British  goods  simultaneously  and  for  several  succes- 
sive years,  he  would  still  have  been  confronted  with  a  difiiicult 
task  to  prevent  smuggling  and  the  bribery  of  customs  officials, 
which  reached  large  proportions  even  in  France  and  in  the  sur- 
rounding states  that  he  had  under  fairly  effective  control.  But 
to  bring  all  Continental  states  into  line  with  his  economic  cam- 
paign against  Great  Britain  was  a  colossal  task,  to  the  perform- 
ance of  which  he  subordinated  all  his  subsequent  policies. 

We  have  seen  how  by  the  treaty  of  Tilsit  (1807)  Napoleon 
extorted  promises  from  the  tsar  of  Russia  and  the  king  of 
Prussia  to  exclude  British  goods  from  their  respective  countries. 
He  himself  saw  to  the  enforcement  of  the  decrees  in  the  French 
Empire,  in  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  in  the  Confederation  of  the 
Rhine,  and  in  the  grand-duchy  of  Warsaw.  Brother  Joseph  did 
his  will  in  Naples,  Brother  Jerome  in  Westphalia,  Sister  Elise 
in  Tuscany,  and  Brother  Louis  was  expected  to  do  his  will  in 
Holland.  The  outcome  of  the  war  with  Sweden  in  1808  was  the 
completion  of  the  closure  of  all  Scandinavian  ports  to  the  British. 


550  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

Napoleon's  determination  to  have  his  decrees  executed  in  the 
Papal  States,  as  well  as  his  high-handed  treatment  of  matters 
affecting  the  Catholic  Church  in  France,  brought 
Subordi-  him  into  conflict  with  Pope  Pius  VII,  a  gentle  but 
Napoleon's  courageous  man,  who  in  daring  to  excommunicate  the 
Foreign  European  taskmaster  was  summarily  deprived  of  his 
toVhTEn-  temporal  rule  and  carried  off  a  prisoner,  first  to 
forcement  Grenoble,  then  to  Savona,  and  finally  to  Fontaine- 
Contfnentai  blcau,  where  he  resided,  heaped  with  disgrace  and 
System  insults,  Until  1814.     In  1809  Napoleon  formally  in- 

corporated the  Papal  States  into  the  French  Empire. 
And  when  in  the  next  year  Louis  Bonaparte  gave  clear  signs 
of  an  intention  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  his  Dutch  sutJ- 
jects,  even  to  his  brother's  detriment,  by  admitting  British 
goods,  he  was  peremptorily  deposed,  and  Holland,  too,  was 
incorporated  into  the  ever-enlarging  French  Empire.  Hence- 
forth, the  Dutch  had  to  bear  the  burdens  of  conscription  and  of 
crushing  taxation. 

Meanwhile  Napoleon  was  devoting  special  attention  to  clos- 
ing Portugal  and  Spain  to  British  goods,  and  political  conditions 
Napoleon's  ^^  these  Countries  seemed  to  favor  his  designs.  For 
Interference  ovcr  a  hundred  years  Portugal  had  been  linked  in 
in  ortuga  (>jQgg  trade  relations  with  England,  ever  since  the 
Methuen  Treaty  of  1703,  which,  in  return  for  the  admission  of 
English  woolens  into  Portugal,  had  granted  differential  duties 
favoring  the  importation  of  Portuguese  wines  into  England  and 
had  thus  provided  a  good  market  for  an  important  Portuguese 
product  to  the  exclusion  largely  of  the  French.  Napoleon, 
early  in  his  pubHc  career,  had  tried,  for  a  time  successfully,^ 
to  break  these  commercial  relations  between  Great  Britain  and 
Portugal,  but  it  was  not  until  after  Tilsit  that  he  entered  seri- 
ously upon  the  work.  He  then  formally  demanded  the  adherence 
of  Portugal  to  the  Continental  System  and  the  seizure  of  all 
British    subjects    and    property    within    the   kingdom.     Prince 

^  In  1 801,  as  First  Consul,  Napoleon  had  prevailed  upon  Spain  to  attack  Portu- 
gal in  order  to  secure  the  repudiation  of  the  Methuen  Treaty  and  the  promise  of 
hostility  to  Great  Britain.  This  step  had  proved  fatal  to  Portuguese  trade,  and 
in  1804  the  Portuguese  government  had  purchased  from  Napoleon  a  solemn  recog- 
nition of  neutrality. 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  551 

John,  the  regent  of  the  small  country,  protested,  besought  Great 
Britain  for^aid,  hesitated,  and  linally  refused.  Already  a  Franco- 
Spanish  army  was  on  its  way  to  force  compliance  with  the 
emperor's  demands. 

In  the  court  of  the  Spanish  Bourbons  was  a  situation  that 
Napoleon  could  readih'  utilize  in  order  to  have  his  way  both  in 
Portugal  and  in  Spain.  On  the  throne  of  Spain  was  and  in 
seated  the  aging  Charles  IV  (i 788-1808),  boorish,  Spain 
foolish,  easily  duped.  By  his  side  sat  his  queen,  a  coarse  sensu- 
ous woman  "  with  a  tongue  like  a  fishwife's."  Their  heir  was 
Prince  Ferdinand,  a  conceited  irresponsible  young  braggart 
in  his  early  twenties.  And  their  favorite,  the  true  ruler  of 
Spain,  if  Spain  at  this  time  could  be  said  to  have  a  ruler,  was 
Godoy,  a  vain  flashy  adventurer,  who  was  loved  by  the  queen, 
shielded  by  the  king,  and  envied  by  the  heir.  Under  such  a 
combination  it  is  not  strange  that  Spain  from  1795  to  1808  was 
but  a  vassal  state  to  France.  Nor  is  it  strange  that  Napoleon 
was  able  in  1807  to  secure  the  approval  of  the  Spanish  king  to 
the  partition  of  Portugal,  a  liberal  share  having  been  allotted 
to  the  precious  Godoy. 

Thus  French  troops  were  suffered  to  pour  across  Spain,  and, 
in  October,  1807,  to  invade  Portugal.  On  i  December,  Lisbon 
was  occupied  and  the  Continental  System  proclaimed  in  force, 
but  on  the  preceding  day  the  Portuguese  royal  family  escaped 
and,  under  convoy  of  a  British  fleet,  set  sail  for  their  distant 
colony  of  Brazil.  Then  it  was  that  Napoleon's  true  intentions 
in  regard  to  Spain  as  well  as  to  Portugal  became  e\ddent. 

French  troops  continued  to  cross  the  Pyrenees  and  to  possess 
themselves  of  the  whole  Iberian  peninsula.     In  Spain  pubHc 
opinion    blamed    the   feeble   king    and    the    detested 
favorite  for  this  profanation  of  the  country's  soil,  and  Bona^J^rte 
in   the   recriminations   that   ensued   at   court   Prince  King  of 
Ferdinand  warmly  espoused  the  popular  side.     Riots  jl^g^' 
followed.     Charles    IV,    to    save    Godoy,    abdicated 
and   proclaimed    Ferdinand   VII    (17    March,    1808).     On    the 
pretext  of  mediating  between  the  rival  factions  in  the  Bourbon 
court.  Napoleon  lured  Charles  and  Ferdinand  and  Godoy  to 
Bayonne  on  the  French  frontier  and  there  by  threats  and  cajolery 
compelled  both  king  and  prince  to  resign  all  claims  upon  their 


552  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

throne.  Charles  retired  to  Rome  on  a  pension  from  Napoleon ; 
Ferdinand  was  kept  for  six  years  under  strict  military  guard  at 
Talleyrand's  chateau ;  the  Bourbons  had  ceased  to  reign. 
Brother  Joseph  Bonaparte  was  at  once  promoted  to  the  throne 
of  Spain,  and  Brother-in-law  Joachim  Murat  supplanted  him 
as  king  of  Naples. 

In  July,  1808,  under  protection  of  French  troops,  Joseph 
Bonaparte  was  crowned  at  Madrid.  Forthwith  he  proceeded 
■  to  confer  upon  his  new  subjects  the  favors  of  the  Napoleonic 
regime :  he  decreed  equality  before  the  law,  individual  hberties, 
abolition  of  feudaHsm  and  serfdom,  educational  reforms,  sup- 
pression of  the  Inquisition,  diminution  of  monasteries,  confisca- 
tion of  church  property,  pubHc  improvements,  and,  last  but 
not  least,  the  vigorous  enforcement  of  the  Continental  System. 

The  comparative  ease  with  which  Napoleon  had  thus  been  able 
Vi  to  supplant  the  Spanish  Bourbons  was  equaled  only  by  the 
Resistance  difficulty  which  he  and  his  brother  now  experienced 
in  Spain  y^j|-}-^  ^]^g  Spanish  people.  Until  1808  the  Corsican 
adventurer  had  had  to  deal  primarily  with  divine-right  monarchs 
and  their  old-fashioned  mercenary  armies ;  henceforth  he  was 
confronted  with  real  nations,  inspired  by  the  same  soHd  patri- 
otism which  had  inspirited  the  French  and  dominated  by  much 
the  same  revolutionary  fervor.  The  Spanish  people  despised 
their  late  king  as  weak  and  traitorous  ;  they  hated  their  new  king 
as  a  foreigner  and  an  upstart.  For  Spain  they  were  patriotic 
to  the  core :  priests  and  nobles  made  common  cause  with 
commoners  and  peasants,  and  all  agreed  that  they  would  not 
brook  foreign  interference  with  their  domestic  concerns.  All 
Spain  blazed  forth  in  angry  insurrection.  Revolutionary  com- 
mittees, or  juntas,  were  speedily  organized  in  the  provinces ; 
troops  were  enrolled  ;  and  a  nationaHst  reaction  was  in  full  swing. 
By  I  August,  1808,  Joseph  was  obliged  to  flee  from  Madrid  and 
interrela-  ^^^  French  troops  were  in  retreat  toward  the  Pyrenees, 
tion  of  the  To  add  to  the  discomfiture  of  the  French,  George 

Syst*^em  and  Canning,  the  British  foreign  minister,  promptly  prom- 
Spanish  ised  his  country's  active  assistance  to  a  movement 
Nationalism  ^j^^gg  j.g^j  significance  he  already  clearly  perceived. 
In  ringing  words  he  laid  down  the  British  policy  which  would 
obtain  until  Napoleon  had  been  overthrown:    "We  shall  pro- 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  553 

cecd  upon  the  principle  that  any  nation  of  FAiropc  wliich  starts 

up  to  op[)ose  a  Power  which,  whether  professing  insidious  peace 

or  declaring  open  war,  is  the  common  enemy  of  all  nations, 

becomes  instantly  our  ally."     On  i  August,  1808,  true  to  this 

declaration,  a  British  army  under  the  command  of  Sir  Arthur 

Wellesley,  subsequently  duke  of  Wellington,  landed  in  Portugal 

and   proceeded    to  cooperate   with    Portuguese    and 

Spanish   against  the  French.     It  was  the  beginning  Peninsular 

of  the  so-called  Peninsular  War,  which,  with  little  in-  '^ar,  1808- 

1813 
terruption,  was  to  last  until   18 13   and  to  spell  the 

first  disasters  for  Napoleon. 

Witliin  three  weeks  after  their  landing  the  British  were  in 

possession  of   Portugal.     Roused  by   this   unexpected   reverse. 

Napoleon  assumed  personal  command  of  the  French  forces  in 

(the  Peninsula.  And  such  was  his  vigor  and  resourcefulness 
that  in  December,  1808,  he  reinstated  Joseph  in  Madrid  and 
drove  the  main  British  army  out  of  Spain.  The  success  of  Na- 
poleon, however,  was  but  temporary  and  illusory.  Early  in 
1809  grave  developments  in  another  part  of  Europe  called  him 
laway  from  Spain,  and  the  marshals,  whom  he  left  behind, 
L  quarreled  with  one  another  and  at  the  same  time  experienced 
to  the  full  the  difficulties  which  Napoleon  himself  would  have 
encountered  had  he  remained. 

The  difficulties  which  impeded  French  military  operations  in 
the  Iberian  peninsula  were  well-nigh  insurmountable.  The 
nature  of  the  country  furnished  several  unusual  obstacles.  In 
the  first  place,  the  poverty  of  the  farms  and  the  paucity  of  settle- 
ments created  a  scarcity  of  provisions  and  rendered  it  difficult 
for  the  French  armies  to  resort  to  their  customary  practice  of 
living  upon  the  land.  Secondly,  the  sudden  alternations  of 
heat  and  cold,  to  which  the  northern  part  of  Spain  is  liable, 
coupled  with  the  insanitary  condition  of  many  of  the  towns, 
spread  disease  among  the  French  soldiery.  Finally,  the  suc- 
cession of  fairly  high  and  steep  mountain  ranges,  which  cross 
the  Peninsula  generally  in  a  direction  of  northwest  to  southeast, 
prevented  any  campaigning  on  the  large  scale  to  which  Napo- 
leonic tactics  were  accustomed,  and  put  a  premium  upon  loose, 
irregular  guerrilla  fighting,  in  which  the  Spaniards  were  adepts. 
In  connection   with    these  obstacles  arising   from    the    nature 


554  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

of  the  country  must  be  remembered  the  fierce  patriotic  deter- 
mination of  the  native  people  and  the  arms  and  discipHned 
commanders  furnished  by  the  British. 
,,  The  era  of  national  revolts  had  dawned,  and  it  was  not  long 
\^  before  Austria  learned  the  lesson  from  Spain.  Ever  since  1792 
Nationalism  the  Austrian  ruler  had  borne  the  brunt  of  the  Conti- 
in  Austria  nental  warfare  against  revolutionary  France.  And 
stung  by  the  disasters  and  humiliations  of  1805  and  1806,  the 
Emperor  Francis  intrusted  preparations  for  a  war  of  revenge 
to  the  Archduke  Charles  and  to  Count  Stadion,  an  able  states- 
man and  diplomat.  The  immediate  results  were :  first,  a  far- 
reaching  scheme  of  mihtary  reform,  which  abolished  the  obsolete 
methods  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  chief  characteristics 
of  the  new  order  being  the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  the 
\'  "nation  in  arms"  and  of  the  war  organization  and  tactics  in 
use  among  the  French ;  and  secondly,  the  awakening  of  a  Hvely 
and  enthusiastic  feehng  of  patriotism  among  the  Austrian  people, 
especially  among  the  Tyrolese,  whom  the  arbitrary  act  of  the 
French  despot  had  handed  over  to  Bavaria.  The  opportunity 
Premature  ^^^  ^^  effective  stroke  appeared  to  be  afforded  by 
Efforts  of  the  Spanish  situation,  and  the  general  result  was  a 
Austria  desperate  attempt,  premature  as  the  event  proved, 

to  overthrow  Napoleon.     On  9  April,    1809,  Austria  declared 
war,  and  the  next  day  Archduke  Charles  with  a  splendid  army 
advanced  into  Bavaria.     Napoleon,  who  temporarily  put  the 
Spanish  danger  out  of  his  mind,  struck  the  archduke  with  his 
,    usual  lightning  rapidity,  and  within  a  week's  time  had  forced 
^  him  back  upon  Vienna.     Before  the  middle  of  May  the  French 
emperor  was  once  more  in  the  Austrian  capital.     But  the  Arch- 
duke Charles  remained  resolute,  and  on  21-22  May  inflicted 
such  a  reverse  on  Napoleon  at  Aspern  on  the  Danube  below 
li  Vienna,  that,  had  there  been  prompt  cooperation  on  the  part  of 
other  Austrian  commanders  and  speedy  assistance  from  other 
states,  the  Corsican  might  then  have  been  overthrown 
(1809)  and     and  Europe  saved  from  a  vaster  deluge  of  blood.     As 
the  FaUure     [^  ^-g^g^  Napoleon  was  allowed  a  fateful  breathing  spell, 
and  on  5-6  July  he  fought  and  won  the  hard  battle 
of  Wagram.     Wagram  was  not  a  rout  hke  Austerlitz,  but  it 
was   sufficiently  decisive   to   induce   the   Austrian  emperor  to 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  555 

accept  an  armistice,  and,  after  the  failure  of  a  cooperating 
British  expedition,  to  conclude  the  treaty  of  Vienna  or  Schon- 
brunn  (14  October,  1809),  by  the  terms  of  which  he  had  to 
surrender  western  Galicia  to  the  grand-duchy  of  Warsaw  and 
eastern  GaHcia  to  Russia ;  to  cede  the  Illyrian  provinces  to  the 
French  Empire;  and  to  restore  the  Tyrol,  together  with  a  strip 
of  Upper  Austria,  to  Bavaria.     This  treaty  cost  Austria  four 

,1  and  one-half  million  subjects,  a  heavy  war  indemnity,  and 
promises  not  to  maintain  an  army  in  excess  of  150,000  men,  nor 
to  have  commercial  dealings  with  Great  Britain.  As  a  further 
pledge  of  Austria's  good  behavior,  and  in  order  to  assure  a  direct 
heir  to  his  greatness,  Napoleon  shortly  afterwards  secured  an 
annulment  of  his  marriage  with  Josephine  on  the  ground  that  it 
had  not  been  solemnized  in  the  presence  of  a  parish  priest,  and 

1  early  in  18 10  he  married  a  young  Austrian  archduchess,  Maria 

U  Louisa,  the  daughter  of  the  Emperor  Francis  II.  Even  this 
venture  at  first  seemed  successful,  for  in  the  following  year  a 
son  was  born  who  received  the  high-sounding  appellation  of 
king  of  Rome.  But  Austria  remained  at  heart  thoroughly  hos- 
tile ;  Maria  Louisa  later  grew  faithless ;  and  the  young  prince, 
half-Habsburg  and  half-Bonaparte,  was  destined  to  drag  out  a 
weary  and  futile  existence  among  enemies  and  spies. 

Meanwhile,    the    national    reaction    against    Napoleon    grew 
apace.     It  was  in  Prussia  that  it  reached  more  portentous  dimen- 
sions than  even  in  Austria  or  in  Spain.     Following  so  influence 
closely  upon  the  invigorating  victories  of  Frederick  the  of  the 
Great,  the  disaster  of  Jena  and  the  humihation  of  Tilsit  Revdution 
had  been  a  doubly  bitter  cup  for  the  Prussian  people,  upon 
Prussian  statesmen  were  not  lacking  who  put  the  blame 
for  their   country's  degradation   upon  many  of  the  social  and 
political  conditions  which  had  characterized  the  "old  regime"  in 
all  European  monarchies,  and,  as  these  statesmen  were  called 
in  counsel  by  the  w^ll-intentioned  King  Frederick  William  III 
(i  797-1840),  the  years  from  1807  to  1813  were  marked  by  a 
series  of  internal  reforms  almost  as  significant  in  the  history  of 
Prussia  as  were  those  from  1789  to  1795  in  the  history  of  France. 

;  The  credit  of  the  Prussian  regeneration  belongs  mainly  to 
the  great  minister,  the  Baron  vom  Stein  (1757-1831),  and  in 
the  second  place  to  the  Chancellor  Hardenberg  (1750-182 2),  both 


556  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

of  whom  felt  the  influence  of  English  ideas  and  of  the  French 
philosophy  of  the  eighteenth  century.  On  9  October,  1807, 
The  Re  Stein  issued  at  Memel  the  famous  Edict  of  Emancipa- 

\  generation  tion,  which  abolished  the  institution  of  serfdom 
of  Prussia  throughout  Prussia.  Free  trade  in  land  was  estab- 
lished, and  land  was  left  free  to  pass  from  hand  to  hand  and  class 
to  class.  Thus  the  Prussian  peasants  became  personally  free, 
although  they  were  still  bound  to  make  fixed  payments  to  their 
lords  as  rent.  Moreover,  all  occupations  and  professions  were 
thrown  open  to  noble,  commoner,  and  peasant  alike.  Stein's 
second  important  step  was  to  strengthen  the  cabinet  and  to 
introduce  sweeping  changes  in  the  conduct  of  public  business, 
reforms  too  complicated  and  too  technical  to  receive  detailed 
explanation  in  this  place.  His  third  great,  measure  was  the 
grant  (19  November,  1808)  of  local  self-government,  on  liberal 

1  yet  practical  lines,  to  all  Prussian  towns  and  villages  with  a 
population  in  excess  of  800.  Stein  undoubtedly  intended  the 
last  law  to  be  a  corner-stone  in  the  edifice  of  national  con- 
stitutional government  which  he  longed  to  erect  in  his  country, 
but  in  this  respect  his  plans  were  thwarted  and  Prussia  remained 
another  two  generations  without  a  written  constitution.  In 
181 1  Hardenberg  continued  the  reform  of  the  condition  of  the 

\/  peasants  by  making  them  absolute  owners  of  part  of  their  hold- 
ings, the  landlords  obtaining  the  rest  as  partial  compensation 
for  their  lost  feudal  and  servile  dues.     During  the  same  period, 
:  the  army  was  likewise  reorganized  by  Scharnhorst  and  Gneise- 

!  •  nau ;  compulsory  universal  service  was  introduced,  while  the 
condition  imposed  by  Napoleon  that  the  army  should  not  exceed 
42,000  men  was  practically  evaded  by  replacing  each  body  of 
42,000  men  by  another  of  the  same  size  as  soon  as  the  first 
was  fairly  versed  in  military  affairs.  In  this  way  every  able- 
bodied  male  Prussian  was  in  preparation  for  an  expected  War  of 
Liberation. 

Of  course  Napoleon  had  some  idea  of  what  was  happening 
in  Prussia :  he  protested,  he  threatened,  he  actually  succeeded 
late  in  1808  in  securing  the  dismissal  of  Stein.  But  the  re- 
doubtable Prussian  reformer  spent  the  next  three  years  in  trying 
to  fan  the  popular  flame  in  Austria  and  thence  betook  himself 
to  Russia  to  poison  the   ear  and  mind  of  the  Tsar  Alexander 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  557 

against  the  emperor  of  the  Frencli.  In  the  meantime  Napoleon 
was  far  too  busy  with  other  matters  to  give  thorough  attention 
to  the  continued  development  of  the  popular  reforms  in  Prussia. 
There  the  national  spirit  burned  ever  brighter  through  the  exer- 
tions of  patriotic  societies,  such  as  the  Tugendbimd,  or  "League 
of  Mrtue,"  through  the  writings  of  men  like  Fichte  and  Arndt, 
and,  perhaps  most  permanently  of  all,  through  the  wonderful 
educational  reforms,  which,  associated  indissolubly  with  the 
name  of  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  (1767-1835),  gave  to  Prussia 
the  basis  of  her  present  common-school  system  and  to  the  world 
the  great  University  of  Berhn  (1809). 

It  was  no  longer  true  that  the  French  had  a  monopoly  of 
the  blessed  principles  of  liberty,  equahty,  and  fraternity,  for 
which  to  light.  It  was  no  longer  a  fact  that  they  were  the  only 
nation  defending  their  homes,  their  lands,  and  their  rights.  By 
1810  the  despotism  of  Napoleon  was  more  selfish  and  more  di- 
rectly galling  to  the  Prussian  people  than  had  been  the  threatened 
tyranny  of  Austrian  and  Prussian  monarchs  to  an  emancipated 
French  nation  in  the  dark  days  of  1792.  Prussia  was  bankrupt, 
shorn  of  half  her  provinces,  enduring  the  quartering  of  foreign 
soldiers,  and  suffering  the  ruin  of  her  crops  and  the  paralysis  of 
her  trade.  Thanks  to  the  'Continental  System,  which  had  been 
none  of  their  doing,  the  Prussian  people  witnessed  the  decay  of 
their  seaports,  the  rotting  of  their  ships  in  their  harbors,  paid 
exorbitant  prices  for  tobacco,  and  denied  themselves  sugar, 
coffee,  and  spices.  They  were  grumbling  and  getting  into  a 
temper  that  boded  ill  to  the  author  of  their  injuries. 

Meanwhile  the  warfare  in  Spain  dragged  on.     In  181 2  Well- 
ington with  his  allied  British  and  Spanish  troops  won  the  great 
\dctory  of  Salamanca,  captured  Madrid,  and  drove  Liberalism 
Joseph  and  the  French  north  to  Valencia.     In  the  ^°  ^p^*" 
same  year  radical  groups  of  Spaniards,  who  had  learned  revo- 
lutionary doctrines  from  the  French,  assembled  at  Cadiz  and 
drafted  a  constitution  for  what  they  hoped  would  be 
their  regenerated  country.     This  written  constitution,   Spanish 
next  in  age  to  the  American  and  the  French,  was  5°'^^*l^"o 
more  radical  than  either  and  long  served  as  a  model 
for  liberal  constitutions  throughout  southern  Europe.     After  a 
preamble  in  honor  of  the  "old  fundamental  laws  of  this  mon- 


558  HISTORY  OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

archy,"  the  constitution  laid  down  the  very  principle  of  the 
,  Revolution:  "Sovereignty  is  vested  essentially  in  the  nation, 
1  and  accordingly  it  is  to  the  nation  exclusively  that  the  right  of 
making  its  fundamental  laws  belongs."  The  legislative  power 
was  intrusted  to  the  Cortes,  a  single-chamber  parliament  elected 
for  two  years  by  indirect  universal  suffrage.  The  executive 
power  was  given  to  the  king  to  be  exercised  by  his  ministers. 
The  king  could  affix  a  suspensive  veto  to  the  acts  of  the  Cortes. 
The  constitution  further  proclaimed  the  principles  of  individual 
liberty  and  legal  equality  and  sought  to  abolish  the  old  regime 
root  and  branch  :  provision  was  made  for  a  thorough  reorganiza- 
tion of  courts,  local  administration,  taxation,  the  army,  and 
public  education.  While  the  framers  of  the  constitution  affirmed 
that  "the  religion  of  the  Spanish  nation  is  and  always  will  be 
the  Apostolic  Church  of  Rome,  the  only  true  Church,"  they 
persisted  in  decreeing  the  suppression  of  the  Inquisition  and  the 
secularization  of  ecclesiastical  property.  That  such  a  radical 
constitution  would  be  understood  and  championed  forthwith  by 
the  whole  Spanish  people,  only  the  most  confirmed  and  fanatical 
optimist  could  believe,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  certain 
that  the  Spaniards  as  a  nation  were  resolved  that  the  Conti- 
nental System  and  the  Bonaparte  family  must  go.  They  might 
sacrifice  equality  but  not  national  liberty. 

At  last  the  four  fateful  defects  in  the  Napoleonic  Empire,  — 

!   the  character  of  Napoleon  himself,  the  nature  of  his  army,  the 

I   Continental  System,  and  the  rise  of  nationalism,  —  were  painfully 

(  in   evidence.     The   drama  thenceforth  led   irresistibly   through 

two  terrible  acts  ^ — the  Russian  campaign  and  the  Battle  of  the 

Nations  —  to  the  denouement  in  the  emperor's  abdication  and  to 

a  sorry  epilogue  in  Waterloo. 

It  was  the  rupture  between  Napoleon  and  the  Tsar  Alexander 
that  precipitated  the  disasters.  A  number  of  events  which 
strained  transpired  between  the  celebrated  meeting  at  Tilsit 
Relations  in  1807  and  the  memorable  year  of  1812  made  a 
Napoleon  rupture  inevitable.  Tilsit  had  purported  to  divide 
and  Tsar  the  world  between  the  two  emperors,  but  Alexander, 
as  junior  partner  in  the  firm,  soon  found  that  his  chief 
function  was  to  assist  Napoleon  in  bringing  all  western  and  cen- 
tral Europe  under  the  domination  of  the  French  Empire  while 


Fraiifi-  when  Nm|pi)1«)1i  rnnie  to  Pi>\vi'r'(17'.l!)) 
Kreiii  h  Ari|iiiNitions  under  Nii|>(ilecin 
rri.k'i  Pr.ilf.tiim  i.f  Naiiolciin 

(r 


\\ 


i 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  559 

he  himself  was  allowed  b}-  no  means  a  free  rein  in  dealing  with 
his  own  country's  hereditary  enemies  —  Sweden,  Poland,  and 
Turkey.  To  be  sure,  Alexander  had  wrested  Finland  from 
Sweden  (1809),  but  Napoleon's  forcing  of  Sweden  into  a  war 
with  Great  Britain  (1810-1812),  presumably  as  an  ally  of  Russia 
as  well  as  of  France,  had  prevented  him  from  extending  his  terri- 
tory further  in  that  direction.  Then,  too,  the  revival  of  a  Polish 
state  under  the  name  of  the  grand-duchy  of  Warsaw  and  under 
French  protection  was  a  thorn  in  his  flesh,  which  became  all  the 
more  painful,  more  irritating,  when  it  was  enlarged  after  the 
Austrian  War  of  1809.  Finally,  Alexander's  warfare  against 
Turkey  was  constantly  handicapped  by  French  diplomacy,  so 
that  when  the  treaty  of  Bucharest  was  at  length  concluded  (28 
May,  181 2)  it  was  due  to  British  rather  than  to  French  assist- 
ance that  Russia  extended  her  southern  boundary  to  the  River 
Pruth.     Alexander  was  particularly  piqued  when  Napoleon  de- 

il  throned  one  of  the  tsar's  relatives  in  Oldenburg  and  arbitrarily 
annexed  that  duchy  to  the  French  Empire,  and  he  was  deeply 
chagrined  when  the  marriage  of  his  ally  with  a  Habsburg  arch- 
duchess seemed  to  cement  the  bonds  between  France  and  Austria. 
All  these  political  differences  might  conceivably  have  been 
adjusted,  had  it  not  been  for  the  economic  breach  which  the 
Continental  System  ever  widened.  Russia,  at  that  time  almost 
exclusively  an  agricultural  country,  had  special  need  of  British 
imports,  and  the  tsar,  a  sympathetic,  kind-hearted  man,  could 
not  endure  the  suffering  and  protests  of  his  people.  The  result 
was  a  gradual  suspension  of  the  rigors  of  the  Continental  System 
in  Russia  and  the  eventual  return  to  normal  trade  relations  as 
they  had  existed  prior  to  Tilsit.  This  simple  fact  Napoleon 
could  not  and  would  not  recognize.     ''Russia's  partial  abandon- 

^  ^  ment  of  the  Continental  System  was  not  merely  a  pretext  but 
the  real  ground  of  the  war.     Napoleon  had  no  alternative  be- 
tween fighting  for  his  system  and  abandoning  the  prepara- 
only  method  open  to  him  of  carrying  on  war  against  tions  for 
England."  Z^een 

By  the  opening  of  the  year   181 2   Napoleon  was  France  and 
actively  preparing  for  war  on  a  large  scale  against  his 
recent  ally.     From  the  Austrian  court,  thanks  to  his  wife,  he 
secured  assurances  of  sympathy  and  the  promise  of  a  guard  of 


56o  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

30,000  men  to  protect  the  right  wing  of  his  Russian  invasion. 
From  the  trembhng  Prussian  king  he  wrung,  by  threats,  per- 
mission to  lead  his  invaders  across  Prussian  soil  and  the  support 
of  20,000  troopers  for  the  left  of  his  Hnes.  A  huge  expedition 
was  then  gathered  together:  some  250,000  French  veterans; 
150,000  Germans  from  the  Confederation  of  the  Rhine;  80,000 
Italians ;  60,000  Poles ;  and  detachments  of  Dutch,  Swiss,  Danes, 

!  and  Serbo-Croats ;    in  all,  a  mighty  motley  host  of  more  than 
600,000  men. 

As  the  year  advanced,  the  Tsar  Alexander  made  counter 
preparations.  He  came  to  a  formal  understanding  with  Great 
Britain.  Through  British  mediation  he  made  peace  with  the 
Turks  and  thus  removed  an  enemy  from  his  flank.  And  a  series 
of  treaties  between  himself,  Great  Britain,  and  Marshal  Berna- 
dotte,  who  was  crown-prince  of  Sweden  and  tired  of  Napoleonic 
domination,  guaranteed  him  in  possession  of  Finland,  assured 
him  of  a  supporting  Swedish  army,  and  in  return  promised  Nor- 
way as  compensation  to  Sweden.     A  well-trained  Russian  army 

^  of  400,000  men,  under  the  stubborn,  taciturn  veteran,  General 

^  Kutusov,  was  put  in  the  field. 

War  seemed  imminent  by  April,  181 2.     After  leisurely  complet- 
ing his  preparations,  Napoleon  crossed  the  Niemen  on  24  June, 
and  the  invasion  of  Russia  had  begun.     It  was  the 

Napoleon  s  .  ii- 

Russian  plan  of  the  French  emperor  either  to  smash  his  enemy 
Campaign,  [-^  ^  single  great  battle  and  to  force  an  early  advan- 
tageous treaty,  or,  advancing  slowly,  to  spend  the 
winter  in  Lithuania,  inciting  the  people  to  insurrection,  and 
then  in  the  following  summer  to  march  on  to  Moscow  and  there 
in  the  ancient  capital  of  the  tsars  to  dictate  terms  of  peace. 
The  Russian  plan  of  campaign  was  quite  different.  The  tsar 
knew  his  people,  that  they  were  deeply  rehgious  and  patriotic, 
that  they  hated  Napoleon  bitterly,  and  that  they  could  be 
trusted  not  to  revolt.  He  likewise  knew  well  the  character  of 
the  800  miles  of  comparatively  barren  steppes  that  intervened 
between  the  Niemen  and  Moscow,  whereon  small  armies  could 
be  beaten  and  large  ones  starved.  Against  the  Grande  Armee 
\i  therefore,  Alexander  directed  that  no  decisive  battle  be  risked, 
but  that  the  Russian  forces,  always  retreating,  should  draw  their 
opponents  on  as  far  as  possible  into  the  interior  of  the  country, 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  561 

where  the  rigors  and  i)ri\ali()ns  of  a  Russian  winter  could  be 
expected  to  work  greater  havoc  among  them  than  could  powder 
and  bullets. 

To  his  surprise  and  uneasiness,  therefore,  Napoleon  after  cross- 
ing the  Niemen  found  the  Russians  always  retreating  before 
his  advance.  No  decisive  victory  could  be  won  against  the 
elusive  foe.  Nor  was  the  temper  of  the  Lithuanians  such  as  to 
encourage  him  to  remain  all  winter  among  them.      Pushing  on 

j.'into  Russia,  he  captured  the  great  fortress  of  Smolensk  but  still 

M  failed  to  crush  the  main  Russian  army.  Then  it  was  that  he 
made  the  momentous  decision  to  press  on  at  once  to  Moscow. 
On  7  September,  General  Kutusov  turned  against  him  at  Boro- 

Mdino  and  inflicted  serious  injury  upon  his  army,  but  a  week 
later  he  was  in  possession  of  Moscow.  The  battle  of  Borodino, 
together  with  the  perpetual  harassing  of  his  outposts  by  the 

\  retreating   Russians,  had    already  inflicted   very   severe  losses 

1 1  upon  Napoleon,  but  he  still  had  an  army  of    about  100,000 

I' to  quarter  in  IMoscow. 

p  The  very  night  of  his  triumphal  entry,  the  city  was  set  on 
fire  through  the  carelessness  of  its  own  inhabitants,  —  the 
bazaar,  with  its  stock  of  wine,  spirits,  and  chemicals,  becoming 
the  prey  of  the  flames.  Barracks  and  foodstuffs  were  alike  de- 
stroyed;  the  inhabitants  fled;  what  was  left  of  the  city  was 
pillaged  by  the  French  troops  as  well  as  by  the  Russians  them- 
selves ;  and  the  burning  of  Moscow  became  the  signal  for  a  gen- 
eral rising  of  the  peasants  against  the  foreigners  who  had  brought 
such  evils  in  their  train.  The  lack  of  supplies  and  the  impossi- 
bility of  wintering  in  a  ruined  city,  attacked  in  turn  by  an  enraged 
peasantry  and  by  detachments  of  General  Kutusov 's  army, 
now  comfortably  ensconced  a  short  distance  to  the  south,  com- 
pelled Napoleon  on  22  October,  after  an  unsuccessful  attempt 

y  to  blow  up  the  Kremlin,  or  citadel,  to  evacuate  Moscow  and  to 
retrace  his  steps  toward  the  Niemen. 

The  retreat  from  Moscow  is  one  of  the  most  horrible  episodes 
in  all  history.  To  the  exasperating  and  deadly  attacks  of  the 
victoriously  pursuing  Russians  on  the  rear  were  added  the  severity 
of  the  weather  and  the  barrenness  of  the  country.  Steady  down- 
pours of  rain  changed  to  blinding  storms  of  sleet  and  snow. 
Swollen  streams,  heaps  of  abandoned  baggage,  and  huge  snow- 
20 


562  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

drifts  repeatedly  blocked  the  line  of  march.  The  gaunt  and 
desolate  country,  which  the  army  had  ravaged  and  pillaged  dur- 
ing the  summer's  invasion,  now  grimly  mocked  the  re- 
astrour'  treating  host.  It  was  a  land  truly  inhospitable  and 
Retreat  dreary  beyond  description.  Exhaustion  overcame 
Moscow  thousands  of  troopers,  who  dropped  by  the  wayside 
and  beneath  the  snows  gave  their  bodies  to  enrich 
the  Russian  ground.  The  retreat  became  a  rout  and  all  would 
have  been  lost  had  it  not  been  for  the  almost  superhuman  efforts 
of  the  valiant  rear-guard  under  Marshal  Ney.  As  it  was,  a 
mere  remnant  of  the  Grande  A  rmee  —  certainly  fewer  than 
\  50,000  men  —  recrossed  the  Niemen  on  13  December,  and,  in  piti- 
able plight,  half-starved  and  with  torn  uniforms,  took  refuge  in 
Germany.  Fully  half  a  million  lives  had  been  sacrificed  upon 
the  fields  of  Russia  to  the  ambition  of  one  man.  Yet  in  the 
face  of  these  distressing  facts,  this  one  man  had  the  unblushing 
effrontery  and  overweening  egotism  to  announce  to  the  affiicted 
French  people  that  "the  emperor  has  never  been  in  better 
health!" 

For  a  moment  the  Tsar  Alexander  hesitated.  Russia  at  least 
^'  was  freed  from  the  Napoleonic  peril.  To  make  peace  in  this  hour 
of  triumph  might  be  of  great  advantage  to  his  country 
Coalition  and  would  involve  no  further  risks  on  his  part.  But 
against  j^jg  Q^y^  dreamy  longing  to  pose  as  the  chief  figure  on 

the  European  stage,  the  deliverer  of  oppressed  nationali- 
ties, coupled  with  the  insistent  promptings  of  Baron  vom  Stein, 
who  was  always  at  his  elbow,  eventually  decided  him  to  complete 
the  overthrow  of  his  rival.  Late  in  December  he  signed  a  con- 
i[  vention  with  the  Prussian  commander.  General  Yorck,  whereby 
the  Prussian  army  was  to  cooperate  with  the  Russian,  British, 
and  Swedish  forces,  and,  in  return,  Prussia  was  to  be  restored  to 
the  position  it  had  enjoyed  prior  to  Jena.  On  13  January,  181 3, 
Alexander  at  the  head  of  the  Russian  troops  crossed  the  Niemeri 
and  proclaimed  the  liberty  of  the  European  peoples.  King 
Frederick  William  III,  amidst  the  enthusiastic  rejoicing  of  his 
people,  soon  confirmed  the  convention  of  his  general,  and  in 
March  declared  war  against  Napoleon.  The  War  of  Libera- 
tion had  commenced. 

The  events  of  the  year  1813  were  as  glorious  in  the  history 


'^  LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  563 

of  Germany  as  they  were  disastrous  for  the  fortunes  of  Napo- 
leon. Prussia  led  in  the  movement  to  free  all  the  German- 
speaking  people  from  French  domination.  From  Prus-  The  War  of 
sia  the  national  enthusiasm  spread  to  the  other  states.  Liberation 
Mecklenburg,  which  had  been  the  last  addition  to  the  Confed- 
eration of  the  Rhine,  was  the  first  to  secede  from  it.  All  north- 
ern and  central  Germany  was  speedily  in  popular  revolt,  and 
the  Prussian  army,  swelled  by  many  patriotic  enlistments, 
marched  southward  into  Saxony.  Austria,  divided  between 
fear  of  Napoleon  and  jealousy  of  the  growing  power  of  Russia, 
mobilized  her  army  and  waited  for  events  to  shape  her  conduct. 
In  these  trying  circumstances  Napoleon  acted  with  his  accus- 
tomed promptness  and  vigor.  Since  his  arrival  in  France  late 
in  181 2,  he  had  been  frantically  engaged  in  recruiting  a  new  army, 
which,  with  the  wreck  of  the  Grande  Armee  and  the  assistance 
that  was  still  forthcoming  from  Naples  and  southern  Germany, 
now  numbered  200,000  men,  and  with  which  he  was  ready  to 

If  take  the  offensive  in  Saxony.  On  2  May,  1813,  he  fell  on  the 
allied  Russians  and  Prussians  at  Liitzen  and  defeated  them, 
but  was  unable  to  follow  up  his  advantage  for  want  of  cavalry. 
On  20—21  May,  he  gained  another  fruitless  victory  at  Bautzen. 

j   It  became  increasingly  ob\ious  that  he  was  being  outnumbered 

!   and  outmaneuvered. 

At  this  point  an  armistice  was  arranged  through  the  friendly 
mediation  of  Austria.     The  government  of  that  country  pro- 
posed a  general  European  peace  on  the  basis  of  the 
reconstruction   of   Prussia,    the   re-partition   of   the  coaution 
grand-duchy   of   Warsaw   by   Russia,    Prussia,    and  {°'"!,^  ^^ 
Austria,   the  re-cession  of  the  Illyrian  provinces  to 
Austria,  the  dissolution  of  the   Confederation  of  the   Rhine, 
and  the  freedom  of  the  German  ports  of  Hamburg  and  Liibeck. 
But  it  was  a  decisive  victory,  not  peace,  that  Napoleon  most 
wanted,  and  the  only  reason  which  had  induced  him  to  accept 
the  armistice   was  to  gain  time  in  order  that  reenforcements 
from    Italy   and   France   might   arrive.     The   delay,   however, 
was  fatal  to  the  French  emperor,  for  his  reenforcements  were 
greatly  outnumbered  by  the  patriots  who  were  continually  flock- 
ing to  the  standards  of  the  allies,  and  by  12  August,  1813,  when 
a  state  of  war  was  resumed,  Austria,  whose  peace  proposals  had 


w 


\ 


564  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

been  rudely  rejected,  had  formally  joined  the  coalition  against 
him. 

Napoleon  was  now  at  Dresden  in  supreme  command  of  armies 
I  aggregating  about  400,000  men,  opposed  by  250,000  Austrians 
Leipzig,  the    ^^  Bohemia  under  Schwarzenberg ;    100,000  Prussians 
"Battle  of     and    Russians    in    Silesia    under    Bliicher;     100,000 
tions,"  Swedes,  Prussians,  and  Russians  near  Berhn  under 

October,        the  Crown  Prince  Bernadotte  of  Sweden ;    and  at 

least  300,000  reserves.  At  Dresden,  in  August,  he 
won  his  last  great  victory,  against  the  Austrian  army  of  General 
Schwarzenberg.  As  his  marshals  suffered  repeated  reverses, 
he  was  unable  to  follow  up  his  own  successes  and  found  himself 
gradually  hemmed  in  by  the  allies,  until  at  Leipzig  he  turned  at 
bay.  There,  on  16-19  October,  was  fought  the  great  three- 
day  "Battle  of  the  Nations."  Against  the  300,000  troops  of 
the  allies,  Napoleon  could  use  only  170,000,  and  of  these  the 
Saxon  contingent  deserted  in  the  heat  of  the  fray.  It  was  by 
mihtary  prowess  that  the  French  Empire  had  been  reared ;  its 
doom  was  sealed  by  the  battle  of  Leipzig.  Napoleon  sacrificed 
on  that  field  another  40,000  lives,  besides  30,000  prisoners  and 
a  large  quantity  of  artillery  and  supplies.  A  fortnight  later, 
with  the  remnant  of  his  army,  he  recrossed  the  Rhine.  Ger- 
many was  freed. 

The  "Battle  of  the  Nations,"  following  within  a  year  the 
disasters  of  the  retreat  from  Moscow,  marked  the  collapse  of 
Collapse  Napoleon's  power  outside  of  France.  His  empire  and 
of  Napo-  vassal  states  tumbled  like  a  house  of  cards.  The  Con- 
Power  federation  of  the  Rhine  dissolved,  and  its  princes  has- 
outside  of      tened,  with  a  single  exception,  to  throw  in  their  lot 

with  the  victorious  alHes.  King  Jerome  Bonaparte 
was  chased  out  of  WestphaHa.  Holland  was  hberated,  and  Wil- 
liam of  Orange  returned  to  his  country  as  king.  Denmark  sub- 
mitted and  by  the  treaty  of  Kiel  (January,  18 14)  engaged  to 
cede  Norway  to  Sweden  in  return  for  a  monetary  payment  and 
Swedish  Pomerania.  Austria  readily  recovered  the  Tyrol  and 
the  Illyrian  provinces  and  occupied  Venetia  and  Switzerland. 
Even  Joachim  Murat  deserted  his  brother-in-law,  and,  in  order 
to  retain  Naples,  came  to  terms  with  Austria.  Only  Polish 
Warsaw  and  the  king  of  Saxony  remained  loyal  to  the  Napoleonic 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  565 

alliance:    the  territories  of  both  were  in  full  possession  of  the 
allies. 

With  the  remnant  of  his  defeated  army  and  what  young  boys 
and  old  men  he  was  able  to  recruit,  Napoleon  needlessly  pro- 
longed the  struggle  on  French  soil.  At  the  close  of  1813  Austria 
prevailed  upon  her  more  or  less  willing  alHes  to  offer  him  wonder- 
fully favorable  terms :  France  might  retain  her  "natural  bound- 
aries" —  the  Rhine,  the  Alps,  and  the  Pyrenees;  and  Napoleon 
might  continue  to  rule  over  a  region  which  would  have  gladdened 
the  heart  of  a  Richelieu  or  of  a  Louis  XIV.  But  it  was  still 
victory  and  not  peace  upon  which  the  supreme  egotist  had  set 
his  mind.     He  still  dreamed  of  overwhelming  Prussia  and  Russia. 

Early  in   1814  three    large  foreign   armies,  totahng  400,000 
men,  and  accompanied  by  the  emperors  of  Russia  and  Austria 
and  the  king  of  Prussia,  invaded  northern  France  and 
converged  on  Paris.     Bliicher  with  his  German  troops  campaign 
was  advancing  up  the  Moselle  to  Nancy ;    Schwar-  ^  ^^^4  in 
zenberg  with  the  Austrians  crossed  the  Rhine  to  the 
south  at  Basel  and  Neu  Breisach ;  Bernadotte  in  the  Nether- 
lands was  welding  Swedes,  Dutch,  and  Prussians  into  a  northern 
army.     Meanwhile,    the   great   defeat   which   Wellington   with 
his  allied  army  of  British,  Spaniards,  and  Portuguese,  had  in- 
flicted upon  the  French  at  Vittoria  (21  June,  1813)  had  for  the 
last  time  driven  King  Joseph  from  Madrid  and  in  effect  cleared 
the  whole  Iberian  peninsula  of  Napoleon's  soldiers.     The  British 
general  had  then  gradually  fought  his  way  through  the  Pyrenees 
so  that  in  the  spring  of  18 14  a  fourth  victorious  allied  army 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Toulouse  threatened  Napoleon  from  the 
south.     An  Austrian  army,  which  was  then  operating  in  Venetia 
and  Lombardy,  menaced  France  from  yet  a  fifth  direction. 

Against  such  overwhelming  odds,  Napoleon  displayed  through- 
out the  desperate  months  of  February  and  March,  1814,  the  same 
remarkable  genius,  the  same  indomitable  will,  as  had  character- 
ized his  earliest  campaigns.  If  anything,  his  resourcefulness  and 
his  rapidity  of  attack  were  even  greater.  Inflicting  a  setback 
on  one  invader,  he  would  turn  quickly  and  dash  against  a  second. 
Such  apprehension  did  his  tiger-like  assaults  excite  among  his 
opponents  that  as  late  as  February  he  might  have  retained  the 
French  frontiers  of  1792  if  he  had  chosen  to  make  peace.     He 


566  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

would  play  the  game  to  the  bitter  end.  On  i  March,  the  four 
Great  Powers  —  Great  Britain,  Russia,  Austria,  and  Prussia  — 
concluded  the  treaty  of  Chaumont,  definitely  cementing  their 
alliance  for  a  period  of  twenty  years  and  mutually  agreeing  not 
to  make  terms  without  each  other's  consent  nor  to  desist  from 
war  until  their  arch-enemy  had  been  overthrown :  each  con- 
tracting party  undertook  to  furnish  150,000  men,  and  Great 
Britain  further  promised  a  subsidy  of  five  milhon  pounds.  The 
fate  of  Napoleon  was  at  last  settled. 

To  describe  in  any  detail  the  brilliant  campaign  of  18 14  lies 
outside  our  province.  Suffice  it  to  state  that,  after  the  most 
Surrender  stubbom  fighting,  resistance  was  broken.  Paris  sur- 
°^fY!^.       rendered  to  the  allies  on  ^i  March,  and  thirteen  days 

and  Abdi-  . 

cation  of  later  Napoleon  signed  with  the  allied  sovereigns  the 
Napoleon  personal  treaty  of  Fontainebleau,  by  which  he  abdi- 
cated his  throne  and  renounced  all  rights  to  France  for  himself 
and  his  family,  and,  in  return,  was  guaranteed  full  sovereignty 
of  the  island  of  Elba  and  an  annual  pension  of  two  million  francs 
for  himself ;  the  ItaHan  duchy  of  Parma  was  conferred  upon  the 
Empress  Maria  Louisa,  and  pensions  of  two  and  a  half  milHon 
francs  were  promised  for  members  of  his  family.  Another 
seven  days  and  Napoleon  bade  his  Old  Guard  an  affecting  fare- 
well and  departed  for  Elba.  In  his  diminutive  island  empire, 
hard  by  the  shore  of  Tuscany  and  within  sight  of  his  native 
Corsica,  Napoleon  Bonaparte  lived  ten  months,  introducing 
such  vigor  into  the  administration  as  the  island  had  never 
experienced  and  all  the  while  pondering  many  things. 

Meanwhile,  in  France  order  was  emerging  from  chaos.  In 
1793  European  sovereigns  had  banded  together  to  invade  France, 
„    ,      .       to  restore  the  divine-right  monarchy  of  the  Bourbons 

Restoration  ,     .    i  r    i  •    m  i     i  i 

of  the  and  the  traditional  rights  of  the  privileged  classes,  and 

Bourbons  j-q  stamp  out  the  embryonic  principles  of  liberty, 
equahty,  and  fraternity.  The  most  noteworthy 
significance  of  the  Era  of  Napoleon  was  the  simple  fact  that 
now  in  1814  the  monarchs  of  Europe,  at  last  in  possession  of 
France,  had  no  serious  thought  of  restoring  social  or  political 
conditions  just  as  they  had  been  prior  to  the  Revolution.  Their 
major  quarrel  was  not  with  principles  but  with  a  man.  The 
Tsar  Alexander,  to  whom  more  than  to  any  other  one  person. 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  567 

was  due  the  triumph  of  the  alHes,  was  a  benevolent  prince,  well- 
versed  in  the  revolutionary  philosophy,  considerate  of  popular 
wishes,  and  anxious  to  promote  a  lasting  peace.  Talleyrand, 
the  man  of  the  hour  among  Frenchmen,  who  himself  had  played 
no  mean  role  throughout  the  Revolution  and  under  Napoleon, 
combined  with  a  desire  to  preserve  the  frontiers  of  his  country 
a  firm  conviction  that  the  bulk  of  his  countrymen  would  not 
revert  to  absolute  monarchy.  Between  Talleyrand 
and  Alexander  it  was  arranged,  with  the  approval  of  wi'th^the"*^* 
the  Great  Powers,  that  in  the  name  of  "legitimacy"  Revoiu- 
the  Bourbons  should  be  restored  to  the  throne  of  f(j°eaT^ 
France,  but  with  the  understanding  that  they  should 
fully  recognize  and  confirm  the  chief  social  and  political  reforms 
of  the  Revolution.  It  was  Ukewise  arranged  by  the  treaty  of 
Paris  (30  May,  1814),  also  in  the  name  of  "legitimacy,"  that 
France  should  regain  the  limits  of  1792,  should  recover  practi- 
cally all  the  colonies  which  Great  Britain  had  seized  during  the 
course  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,^  and  should  pay  no  indemnity. 
"Legitimacy"  was  a  brilliant  discovery  of  Talleyrand:  it  justi- 
fied the  preservation  of  France  in  the  face  of  crushing  defeat, 
and,  if  it  restored  the  Bourbons,  it  did  so  as  limited,  not  as 
absolute,  monarchs. 

Louis  XVI's  "legitimate"  heir  was  his  brother,  the  count  of 
Provence,  a  c>Tiical,  prosaic,  and  very  stout  old  gentleman  who 
had  been  quietly  residing  in  an  EngHsh  country-house,  ,    .   ^„„, 

,,  1  ,  T  •  Louis  XVIII 

and  who  now  made  a  solemn,  if  somewhat  unimpres- 
sive, state  entry  into  Paris.  The  new  king  kept  what  forms  of 
the  old  regime  he  could :  he  assumed  the  title  of  Louis  XVIII, 
"king  of  France  by  the  grace  of  God";  he  reckoned  his  reign 
from  the  death  of  the  dauphin  ("Louis  XVII")  in  the  year 
1795 ;  he  replaced  the  revolutionary  tricolor  by  the  white  and 
lihes  of  his  family ;  out  of  the  fullness  of  his  divinely  bestowed 
royal  authority  he  granted  a  charter  to  the  French  people.  But 
Louis  XVIII  was  neither  so  foolish  nor  so  principled  as  to  insist 
upon  the  substance  of  Bourbon  autocracy :  the  very  Constitu- 
tional Charter,  which  he  so  graciously  promulgated,  confirmed 
the  Revolutionary  Hberties  of  the  individual  and  estabhshed  a 

^  ^  Great  Britain  kept  Tobago  and  St.  Lucia  in  the  West  Indies,  and  Mauritius 
(lie  de  France)  on  the  route  to  India. 


568  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

fairly  liberal  form  of  government  for  France.  It  was  obvious 
that  the  gouty  old  man  had  no  desire  to  risk  his  head  or  to 
embark  again  upon  his  travels. 

The  same  month  that  witnessed  the  unbecoming  straddle 
of  this  French  Bourbon  between  revolution  and  reaction,  beheld 
the  restoration  of  another  Bourbon  in  the  person  of 
ReXa"'^  Ferdinand  VII  to  the  throne  of  Spain,  and  the  re- 
tions  Else-  turn  of  Pope  Pius  VII,  amid  the  enthusiastic  shouts 
Europe"^  of  the  Romans,  to  the  ancient  see  upon  the  Tiber. 
About  the  same  time  Piedmont  and  Savoy  were  re- 
stored to  Victor  Emmanuel  I,  king  of  Sardinia.  Europe  was 
rapidly  assuming  a  more  normal  appearance.  To  settle  the  out- 
standing territorial  questions  which  the  overthrow  of  Napoleon 
had  raised,  a  great  congress  of  rulers  and  diplomats  met  at 
Vienna  in  the  autumn  of  1814. 

Within  a  few  months  the  unusual  calm  was  rudely  broken  by 
the  sudden  reappearance  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte  himself  upon 
Napoleon  ^^^^  European  stage.  It  was  hardly  to  be  expected 
at  Elba,  that  he  for  whom  the  whole  Continent  had  been  too 

1814  1815  gniall  would  be  contented  in  tiny  Elba.  He  nursed 
grievances,  too.  He  could  get  no  payment  of  the  revenue 
secured  him  by  the  treaty  of  Fontainebleau ;  his  letters  to  his 
wife  and  Uttle  son  were  intercepted  and  unanswered ;  he  was 
treated  as  an  outcast.  He  became  aware  of  a  situation  both  in 
France  and  at  Vienna  highly  favorable  to  his  own  ambition. 
As  he  foresaw,  the  shrinkage  of  the  great  empire  into  the  realm 
of  old  France  filled  many  patriotic  Frenchmen  with  disgust, 
a  feeling  fed  every  day  by  stories  of  the  presumption  of  returning 
emigres  and  of  the  tactless  way  in  which  the  Bourbon  princes 
treated  veterans  of  the  Grande  Armee.  Napoleon  in  time  felt 
certain  that  he  could  count  once  more  upon  the  loyalty  of  the 
French  nation.  That  he  would  not  be  obHged  to  encounter  again 
the  combined  forces  of  the  European  Powers  he  inferred  from 
his  knowledge  of  the  ever-recurring  jealousies  among  them  and 
from  the  fact  that  even  then  Russia  and  Prussia  on  one  side  were 
quarreling  with  Austria  and  Great  Britain  on  the  other  over  the 
fate  of  Saxony  and  Poland.  If  some  fighting  were  necessary, 
the  return  of  French  prisoners  from  Russia,  Germany,  Great 
Britain,  and  Spain  would  supply  him  with  an  army  far  larger 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  569 

than  that  with  which  he  had  fought  the  briUiant  campaign  of 
1814. 

On   26  February,    18 15,   Napoleon  sUpped  away  from  Elba 
with  some  twelve  hundred  men,  and,  managing  to  elude  the 
British  guardships,  disembarked  at  Cannes  on  i  March 
and  advanced  northward.     Troops  sent  out  to  arrest  The  Epi- 
the  arch-rebel  were  no  proof  against  the  familiar  uni-  Nap^oieon's 
form  and  cocked  hat :    they  threw  their  own  hats  in  Return  to 
the  air  amid  ringing  shouts  of  vivc  Vempereiir.     Every-  J^^ ' 
where   the   adventurer   received   a   hearty  welcome.  Hundred 
which  attested  at  once  the  unpopularity  of  the  Bour-  jyiYrck- 
bons  and  the  singular  attractiveness  of  his  own  per-   June,  1815 
sonality.     The  French  people,  being  but  human,  put 
imagination  in  the  place  of  reason.     Without  firing  a  shot  in 
his  defense,  Napoleon's  bodyguard  swelled  until  it  became  an 
army.     Marshal  Ney,   the  "bravest  of  the  brave,"  who  had 
taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Bourbons  and  had  promised 
Louis  XVIII  that  he  would  bring  Napoleon  to  Paris  in  an  iron 
cage,  deserted  to   him  with  6000  men,  and   on  20  March  the 
emperor  jauntily  entered   the  capital.     Louis  XVHI  himself, 
who  had  assured  his  parliament  that  he  would  die  in  defense 
of  his  throne,  was  already  in  precipitate  flight  toward  the  Bel- 
gian frontier. 

Napoleon  clinched  his  hold  upon  the  French  people  by  means 
of  an  astute  manifesto  w-hich  he  promptly  published.  "He  had 
come,"  he  declared,  "to  save  France  from  the  out-  Napoleon 
rages  of  the  returning  nobles  ;  to  secure  to  the  peasant  *°^  France 
the  possession  of  his  land;  to  uphold  the  rights  won  in  1789 
against  a  minority  which  sought  to  reestablish  the  privileges 
of  caste  and  the  feudal  burdens  of  the  last  century ;  France  had 
made  trial  of  the  Bourbons ;  it  had  done  well  to  do  so,  but  the 
experiment  had  failed ;  the  Bourbon  m.onarchy  had  proved 
incapable  of  detaching  itself  from  its  w'orst  supports,  the  priests 
and  nobles  ;  only  the  dynasty  which  owed  its  throne  to  the  Revo- 
lution could  maintain  the  social  work  of  the  Revolution.  .  .  . 
He  renounced  war  and  conquest  ...  he  would  govern  hence- 
forth as  a  constitutional  sovereign  and  seek  to  bequeath  a  con- 
stitutional crown  to  his  son." 

The  emperor  was  as  wTong  in  his  judgment  of  what  Europe 


570  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

would  do  as  he  was  right  concerning  the  attitude  of  France. 
The  statesmen  who  had  been  haggUng  about  treaty  stipulations 
Napoleon  at  Vienna  speedily  forgot  all  their  differences  in  the 
and  Europe  f^^^^g  q{  i\^q  common  danger.  The  four  Great  Powers 
solemnly  renewed  their  treaty  of  alUance,  and  with  alacrity 
and  unanimity  all  joined  in  signing  a  declaration.  "In  violat- 
ing the  convention  which  estabhshed  him  in  the  island  of  Elba, 
Bonaparte  has  destroyed  the  only  legal  title  to  his  existence. 
By  reappearing  in  France  with  projects  of  disorder  and  destruc- 
tion, he  has  cut  himself  off  from  the  protection  of  the  law,  and 
has  shown  in  the  face  of  all  the  world  that  there  can  be  neither 
peace  nor  truce  with  him.  Accordingly  the  Powers  declare 
that  Napoleon  Bonaparte  is  excluded  from  ci\'il  and  social  rela- 
tions, and  as  an  enemy  and  disturber  of  the  tranquilHty  of  the 
world  he  has  incurred  pubKc  vengeance.  ..." 

In  order  to  give  force  to  their  threats,  the  allies  rushed  troops 
toward  France.  WelHngton  assembled  an  army  of  more  than 
100,000  British,  Dutch,  and  Germans,  and  planned  to  cooperate 
with  120,000  Prussians  under  Bliicher  near  Brussels.  The 
Austrian  army  under  Schwarzenberg  neared  the  Rhine.  Russia 
and  Germany  were  aHve  with  marching  columns.  To  oppose 
these  forces  Napoleon  raised  an  army  of  200,000  men,  and  on 
12  June,  18 1 5,  quitted  Paris  for  the  Belgian  frontier.  His  plan 
was  to  separate  his  opponents  and  to  overcome  them  singly : 
it  would  be  a  repetition  of  the  campaign  of  18 14,  though  on  a 
larger  scale. 

How  Napoleon  passed  the  border  and  forced  the  outposts 

of  the  enemy  back  to  Waterloo  ;  how  there,  on  18  June,  he  fought 

„,  ^  ,  the  final  great  battle  of  his  remarkable  career ;    how 

Waterloo  °  , 

his  troops  were  mowed  down  by  the  fearful  fire  of  his 

adversaries  and  how  even  his  famous  Old  Guard  rallied  gloriously 
but  ineffectually  to  their  last  charge ;  how  the  defeat  adminis- 
tered by  Wellington  was  turned  at  the  close  of  the  day  into  a 
mad  rout  through  the  arrival  of  Blucher's  forces :  all  these  mat- 
ters are  commonplaces  in  the  most  elementary  histories  of  mili- 
tary science.  It  has  long  been  customary  to  cite  the  battle  of 
Waterloo  as  one  of  the  world's  decisive  battles.  In  a  sense  this 
is  just,  but  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that,  in  view  of  the  firm 
united  determination  of  all  Europe,  there  was  no  ultimate  chance 


"LIBERTY,    EQU.\LITY,    FRATERNITY"  571 

for  Napoleon.  If  he  had  defeated  WeUington,  he  would  still 
have  had  to  deal  with  Bliicher.  If  he  should  then  defeat  the 
Prussians,  he  would  have  to  turn  suddenly  against  Schwarzen- 
berg  and  the  Austrians.  By  that  time  Wellington  would  have 
been  sufficiently  reenforced  to  resume  the  offensive,  and  the  war 
would  ha\-c  gone  on  inevitably  to  but  a  single  grim  conclusion. 
The  alHes  could  put  almost  limitless  numbers  in  the  field ;  Na- 
poleon was  at  the  end  of  his  resources.  For  the  conservation 
of  human  life,  it  was  fortunate  that  Napoleon  was  overwhelmed 
at  Waterloo  and  that  the  first  battle  of  the  campaign  of  1815 
was  also  its  last.  Waterloo  added  military  prestige  to  the  naval 
preeminence  which  Great  Britain  already  enjoyed,  and  finally 
estabHshed  the  reputation  of  WeUington  as  the  greatest  general 
of  his  age  next  only  to  Napoleon  himself.  It  is  small  wonder 
that  the  English  have  magnified  and  glorified  Waterloo.^ 

On  21  June,  Napoleon  arrived  in  Paris,  defeated  and  dejected. 
That  very  day  the  parHament,  on  the  motion  of  Lafayette, 
declared  itself  in  permanent  session  and  took  over  all  pjj^^ 
functions  of  government.  The  following  day  Napo-  Overthrow 
leon  abdicated  the  second  time  in  favor  of  his  son,  and  °  ^^°  *°° 
the  provisional  government  of  France,  under  the  skillful  trim- 
ming of  the  clever  Fouche,  reopened  negotiations  with  the 
Bourbons.  On  7  July  the  allies  reoccupied  Paris,  bringing  the 
flustered  old  Louis  XVIII  "in  their  baggage-train."  The 
Bourbons,  thus  unheroically  restored,  were  destined  for  fifteen 
years  to  maintain  in  peace  their  compromise  between  revolution 
and  reaction. 

On  15  July,  the  day  following  the  anniversary  of  the  fall  of 

the  Bastille,  Napoleon,  who  had  gone  to  Rochefort  on  the  French 

coast,   with   some   vague   idea   of   taking   refuge   in 

America,  delivered  himself  over  to  the  commander  of  a  at  St. 

British  warship  which  was  lying  in  the  harbor.     For  ^„®^®°^i 

,      ,.  ^  r        ^        ■    •  1  1815-1821 

us  who  hve  a  century  after  the  stirrmg  events  whose 

narrative  has  filled   this   chapter,  it  is  easy  to  perceive  that 

^  An  interesting  side  issue  of  the  Waterloo  campaign  was  the  fate  of  Joachim 
Murat.  The  wily  king  of  Naples,  distrustful  of  the  allies'  guarantees,  threw  in 
his  lot  with  his  brother-in-law.  His  forces  were  speedily  put  to  rout  by  the  Austri- 
ans and  he  himself  fled  to  France  and  later  to  Corsica,  and  was  ultimately  captured 
and  shot.  His  action  enabled  still  another  Bourbon,  the  despicable  Ferdinand  I,  to 
recover  his  throne. 


572  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

the  British  government  might  safely  have  extended  hospitahty 
to  their  famous  captive  and  might  have  granted  him  an  asylum 
in  England.  He  was  finally  discredited  in  the  eyes  not  only  of 
the  European  despots  but  also  of  the  vast  majority  of  the 
French  people;  no  matter  how  much  he  might  burn  with  the 
flame  of  his  old  ambition,  he  could  never  again  be  in  a  position 
to  endanger  the  safety  or  prosperity  of  the  United  Kingdom. 
But  in  1815  Englishmen  felt  differently,  and  naturally  so.  To 
them  Napoleon  had  been  for  years  a  more  troublesome  and 
dangerous  enemy  than  a  Philip  II  or  a  Louis  XIV.  By  them 
he  was  deemed  the  unregenerate  child  of  darkness  and  of  the 
evil  spirit.  And  "  General  Bonaparte,"  as  the  British  authori- 
ties persisted  in  calUng  him,  was  not  suffered  to  touch  foot  upon 
the  sacred  soil  of  England,  but  was  dispatched  on  another 
British  warship  to  the  rocky  island  of  St.  Helena  in  the  south 
Atlantic. 

On  St.  Helena  Napoleon  Kved  five  and  a  half  years.  He 
was  allowed  considerable  freedom  of  movement  and  the  society 
of  a  group  of  close  personal  friends.  He  spent  his  time  in  walking 
on  the  lonely  island  or  in  quarreUng  with  his  suspicious  strait- 
laced  English  jailer.  Sir  Hudson  Lowe,  or  in  writing  treatises  on 
history  and  war  and  dictating  memoirs  to  his  companions.  These 
memoirs,  which  were  subsequently  published  by  the  Marquis 
de  Las  Cases,  were  subtly  compounded  of  truth  and  falsehood. 
They  represented  Napoleon  Bonaparte  in  the  light  of  a  true  son 
and  heir  of  the  Revolution,  who  had  been  raised  by  the  will  of 
the  French  people  to  great  power  in  order  that  he  might  consoli- 
date the  glorious  achievements  of  hberty,  equahty,  and  fraternity. 
According  to  the  emperor  himself,  he  had  always  been  the  friend 
of  peace  and  of  oppressed  nationalities,  the  author  of  blessings 
which  had  flowed  uninterruptedly  upon  his  people  until  he  had 
been  thwarted  by  the  machinations  of  the  British  and  the  sheer 
brute  force  of  the  European  despots.  Napoleon  shrewdly  fore- 
saw the  increase  of  popular  discontent  with  the  repressive  meas- 
ures which  the  reactionary  sovereigns  and  statesmen  of  Europe 
were  Ijound  to  inaugurate,  and  in  the  resulting  upheaval  he 
thought  he  could  see  an  opportunity  for  his  beloved  son  to  build 
anew  an  empire  of  the  French.  It  could  hardly  have  been  blind 
chance  that  caused  him  to  insert  in  his  will  the  jiious  request 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  573 

that  he  "be  buried  on  the  banks  of  the  Seine  in  the  midst  of  the 
French  people  whom  he  so  dearly  loved."  On  5  May,  182 1, 
the  greatest  adventurer  of  modern  times  died  on  the  island  of 
St.  Helena. 

Already  the  history  of  the  emperor  was  becoming  the  Na- 
poleonic Legend.  The  more  his  memory  was  revered  as  the 
noble  martyr  of  St.  Helena,  the  more  truth  withdrew  .<  ^^^ 
into  the  background  and  fiction  stepped  into  the  Napoleonic 
limehght.  His  holocausts  of  human  life  were  for-  *^^" 
gotten ;  only  the  glory,  the  unconquerable  prowess  of  his  arms, 
was  remembered.  French  cottages  were  adorned  with  cheap 
likenesses  of  the  little  corporal's  features ;  quaint,  endearing 
nicknames  for  their  hero  were  on  villagers'  lips ;  and  around 
hearth  and  campfire  were  related  apocryphal  anecdotes  of  his 
exploits  at  Lodi,  at  Austerhtz,  and  at  Wagram.  From  a  selfish 
despot  Napoleon  was  returning  to  his  mightier,  if  humbler, 
position  as  a  cliild  of  the  people.  Thus  the  last  years  at  St. 
Helena  were  far  from  fruitless :  they  proved  once  more  that 
the  pen  is  mightier  than  the  sword,  —  for  one  day,  not  by  feats 
of  arms,  but  by  the  power  of  the  Napoleonic  Legend,  another 
Bonaparte  was  to  be  seated  upon  the  throne  of  France. 

SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   ERA   OF   NAPOLEON 

If  we  turn  now  from  the  story  of  Napoleon's  life  to  an  attempt 
to  appraise  the  significance  of  the  whole  era  which  fittingly 
bears  his  name,  we  are  struck  by  its  manifold  achieve- 

,., .  J  ...  1    •       A  Continu- 

ments  m  politics  and  society,  m  commerce,  and  in  ^^j^j^  ^j 
war.     In  general  it  was  a  continuation  of  the  French    the  Revo- 
Revolution.     The  principles  of  liberty,  equality,  and  ^j°^^^^ 
fraternity,  which,  from  1789  to  1799,  had  been  laid 
down  as  the  foundation  exclusively  of  French  political  and  social 
institutions,   became,   from   1799   to   181 5,   the  building-blocks 
for  all  European  nations.     The  least  understood  and  used  was 
undoubtedly  Hberty.     To  be  sure,  both  the  Consulate  "Liberty" 
and  the  empire  were  concrete  and  substantial  examples  under 
of  the  replacement  of  the  old  theory  of  divine-right     ^^°  ^°° 
monarchy  by  the  new  idea  of  popular  sovereignty,  of  governments 
resting,  in  last  analysis,  upon   the   consent   of   the   governed. 


574  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

But  Napoleon  did  hardly  more  to  vitalize  individual  liber- 
ties than  did  the  benevolent  despots  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
or  those  of  his  own  day.  To  secure  the  interested  support  of 
the  bourgeoisie  and  the  peasantry,  the  sacred  right  of  private 
property  was  eloquently  reafhrmed,  and,  as  a  trusty  weapon 
against  possible  clerical  pretensions,  the  noble  rights  of  hberty 
of  conscience  and  Hberty  of  worship  were  grandiloquently 
preached ;  but  the  less  serviceable  hberties  of  speech  and  of 
publication  were  confined  within  the  narrowest  limits  of  mili- 
tary and  imperial  toleration. 

With  equahty  it  was  quite  different.  In  all  the  lands  annexed 
to  France  or  included  witliin  the  radius  of  Napoleon's  direct 
"  Equality  "  influence,  the  forms  and  rights  of  feudalism  and  serf- 
under  dom  wcre  aboUshed,  and  the  social  equalities  embodied 

Napoleon  ^^  ^j^^  Code  NapoUon  were  guaranteed.  Throughout 
southern  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  the  Iberian  peninsula, 
and  a  great  part  of  Italy,  as  well  as  in  France,  the  social  aspects 
of  the  old  regime  underwent  a  thorough  transformation  ;  interior 
customs  lines,  private  roadways,  toll-bridges,  and  internal 
trade  restrictions  were  swept  away ;  in  the  place  of  large  landed 
estates,  with  their  old-time  noble  owners  and  their  wretched 
peasants  attached  to  the  soil  and  suffering  from  burdensome 
tithes  and  dues  and  personal  services,  appeared  a  numerous 
class  of  peasant  proprietors,  owning  and  tilUng  their  own  fields, 
free  to  buy,  sell,  or  exchange  them,  or  to  move  away  to  the  grow- 
ing towns.  Outside  of  Napoleon's  direct  influence,  the  land 
reforms  of  Baron  vom  Stein  in  Prussia  reflected  the  same  spirit 
of  the  age.  These  social  gains  in  the  direction  of  equahty  were, 
in  fact,  the  most  permanent  achievements  of  the  Napoleonic 
Era :  in  spite  of  later  reaction,  it  was  beyond  the  reach  of  possi- 
bility to  restore  the  inequaUties  of  the  outworn  feudal  system. 

Fraternity,  or  national  patriotism,  received  a  marked  impetus 
"Frater-  during  the  era.  Communicated  from  France  by  the 
nity "  under  ardor  of  the  revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  soldiers, 
Napoleon  j^  evoked  ready  response  not  only  in  Poland,  Holland, 
Portugal,  Spain,  England,  and  Russia,  in  which  countries  it  was 
already  existent,  but  also  in  the  Germanics  and  in  the  Itahan 
states,  where  centuries  of. petty  strife  and  jealousy  seemed  to 
have  blotted  it  out  forever.     The  significance  of  the  Napoleonic 


"LIBERTY,    EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY"  575 

period  in  the  history  of  Germany  is  incalculable.  The  diminu- 
tion of  the  number  of  states,  the  aboUtion  of  the  effete  Holy 
Roman  Empire,  the  regeneration  of  Prussia,  the  War  of  Libera- 
tion, the  Battle  of  the  Nations,  the  consciousness  of  common 
interests,  and  the  wave  of  patriotism  which  swept  over 
the  whole  German  folk,  presaged  before  the  lapse  of  Emphasis 
manv  decades  the  poHtical   unification  of   the   Ger-  ?^  Nationai- 

•^  ■"■  ,  ism 

manies  and  the  erection  of  a  powerful  national  state. 
Nor  were  the  Italians  devoid  of  a  similar  national  feeling.  The 
fame  of  Napoleon,  a  man  of  Italian  blood,  the  temporary  es- 
tabhshment  of  a  "kingdom  of  Italy,"  the  title  of  "king  of  Rome" 
conferred  upon  the  infant  heir  to  Napoleon's  fortunes,  the  social 
reforms  and  the  patriotic  awakening  throughout  the  peninsula, — 
all  betokened  a  national  destiny  for  the  whole  Italian  people. 

In  minor  pohtical  ways  the  Napoleonic  Era  was  not  without 
signilicance.  The  Tsar  was  enabled  finally  to  acquire  Finland, 
Poland,  and  Turkish  land  as  far  as  the  River  Pruth,  j^i^oT 
thus  completing  the  work  of  Peter  the  Great  and  Political 
Catherine  the  Great,  and  rounding  out  the  European  ^pp^'^^ss 
frontier  of  Russia  to  its  present  extent.  Sweden  secured 
Norway  and  a  new  dynasty,  which,  descended  from  Marshal 
Bernadotte,  the  interesting  son  of  an  obscure  French  lawyer, 
has  reigned  ever  since.  In  the  case  of  Portugal,  the  flight  of  the 
royal  family  to  Brazil  in  1807  had  the  curious  effect  of  causing 
them  for  several  years  to  hold  their  court  in  their  principal 
colony  and  to  govern  the  mother-country  through  regents. 

Beyond  continental  Europe  the  period  was  of  utmost  impor- 
tance.    The  maritime  and  commercial  supremacy  of  Great  Britain, 
which  had  been  seriously  shaken  by  the  War  of  Amer-  Remark- 
ican  Independence,  was  regained  in  the  course  of  the  able  sig- 
Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  wars.     Of  course  the  ^^  ^-^^  ^^^^ 
United  States  continued  independent.     But  the  great  to  Great 
\dctories  of  Lord  Nelson  over  the  French  fleets  rendered     "  ^ 
Great  Britain  the  true  mistress  of  the  seas ;  and  she  proceeded 
to  utihze  her  naval  superiority  to  appropriate  what  remaining 
French   colonies   most  suited  her  purpose.     In  this   ^^^j^j^gg 
way  she  possessed  herself  of  Malta  (1800),  St.  Lucia, 
Tobago  (1803),  and  Mauritius  (1810).     Then,  too,  the  depend- 
ence of  Holland  upon  France,  involuntary  though  it  was  most 


576  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

of  the  time,  afforded  her  an  opportunity  to  seize  such  valu- 
able Dutch  colonies  as  Ceylon  (1795),  Guiana  (1803),  and  South 
Africa  (1806).  The  sorry  subservience  of  the  Spanish  Bourbons 
to  Napoleon  gave  Great  Britain  a  similar  chance  to  prey  upon 
Spanish  commerce,  to  occupy  some  Spanish  colonies,  and  to 
open  others  to  her  own  trade :  at  this  time  the  British  took 
possession  of  Trinidad  (1797)  and  Honduras  (1798)  and  sent 
raiding  expeditions  against  Buenos  Aires  and  Montevideo  (1806- 
1807).  The  subsequent  Peninsular  War,  in  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  British  cooperated  with  the  Spaniards  in  maintaining 
the  latter's  freedom  against  Napoleon,  put  an  end  to  the  hostile 
British  incursions  into  the  Spanish  colonies,  but  it  worked  in 
another  way  to  Great  Britain's  advantage.  The  Spanish  colonies 
—  Mexico,  Central  America,  and  the  greater  part  of 

Commerce       ^ia-  i-  V-- 

South  America  —  were  thrown  mto  grave  admmis- 

trative  perplexities  by  the  conflict  of  authority  between  the  two 
Bourbon  kings,  Charles  IV  and  Ferdinand  VII,  and  between  King 
Joseph  Bonaparte  and  the  revolutionary  juntas ;  the  colonists 
gradually  got  into  the  habit  of  managing  their  own  affairs  and 
of  opening  their  ports  to  British  trade ;  and  the  result  was  that 
by  1 8 14,  when  Ferdinand  was  at  length  firmly  established  upon 
the  Spanish  throne,  he  was  confronted  by  colonists,  the  greater 
number  of  whom  had  all  along  professed  allegiance  to  him,  but 
who  now,  accustomed  to  the  advantages  of  free  trade  and  practi- 
cal independence,  were  resolved  to  maintain  them.  The  dis- 
ruption of  the  Spanish  colonial  empire  was  a  direct  outcome  of 
Napoleon's  career,  and  next  to  the  colonists  themselves  the  Brit- 
ish were  the  chief  beneficiaries.  In  general,  the  new  colonies 
which  Great  Britain  acquired  were  intended  either,  as  in  the 
case  of  Malta,  Mauritius,  Ceylon,  and  South  Africa,  to 
strengthen  her  hold  upon  India,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  others, 
to  develop  her  trade  with  Spanish  America. 

This  naval  predominance  of  Great  Britain  and  the  expansion 
of  her  commerce  and  colonial  empire  synchronized  with  the 
^  ^    ^  rapid  development  of  the  Industrial  Revolution  within 

Industry  t^      1        i        t  .... 

England.     It  was  the  ceaseless  operation  of  spinning 

frames  and  power  looms,  of  blast  furnaces  and  steam  engines, 

in  a  country  on  which  the  French  emperor's  army  had  never 

trod,  that  most  truly  worked  the  downfall  of  Napoleon. 


LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,    FRATERNITY 


577 


I— (        e 


r3   f^        9J         ;L 

u  ,      t;—  "      c      e 


<-C  o  Cf-ao  O  Soo 


O^adZ  ° 


_  3  CO       ^^ 


~  «   C   0   ri   u   " 


-J   SPL,   O 

PQ 


^"I^K 


"W  « =«  2  u  '^ 


W""^' 


pq  i, 


-     3  3.- 

■Or2EJ!_>-3 
,  c  ■;::  W  v„      o  c 


■°  S 


E>-^ 


rz- 


;  K  j=  ^-TD 


^0-58 

o  ■" 
pa  q 


D.CO'— I 


ao 


1° 


bX 


578  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 


ADDITIONAL  READING 

Textbook  Narratives.  H.  E.  Bourne,  The  Revolutionary  Period  in 
Europe,  1763-181S  (1914),  ch.  xvii-xxvii;  J.  H.  Robinson  and  C.  A.  Beard, 
The  Development  of  Modern  Europe,  Vol.  I  (1907),  ch.  xiv,  xv;  H.  M. 
Stephens,  Revolutionary  Europe,  i/Sg-iSis  (1893),  ch.  vii-xi ;  J.  H.  Rose, 
Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  Era,  ijSg-iSiS  (1895),  ch.  vii-xi;  J.  A.  R. 
Marriott,  The  Remaking  of  Modern  Europe,  lySg-iSjS  (1910),  ch.  vii-xi; 
H.  T.  Dyer,  A  History  of  Modern  Europe  from  the  Fall  of  Constantinople, 
3d  ed.  rev.  by  Arthur  Hassall  (1901),  ch.  Ixi-lxvii;  C.  A.  Fyffe,  A  History 
of  Modern  Europe,  iyg2-i8'/8  (1896),  ch.  v-xii. 

Standard  Biographies  of  Napoleon.  Two  suggestive  outHnes,  either 
one  of  which  may  serve  as  an  admirable  introduction  to  more  careful  study : 
Herbert  Fisher,  Napoleon  (191 2),  in  the  "Home  University  Library"; 
and  R.  M.  Johnston,  Napoleon,  a  Short  Biography  (1910).  August  Fournier, 
Napoleon  I,  3d  rev.  ed.,  3  vols.  (1914),  perhaps  the  best  biography,  a 
German  work,  scholarly,  well  written,  and  impartial,  trans,  into  EngHsh 
from  the  2d  German  edition  by  A.  E.  Adams,  2  vols.  (191 2).  J.  H.  Rose, 
The  Life  of  Napoleon  I,  new  ed.,  2  vols,  in  i  (1907),  a  highly  prized  work, 
mainly  political,  and  thoroughly  British  in  tone;  and,  by  the  same  author. 
The  Personality  of  Napoleon  (191 2),  a  collection  of  interesting  lectures. 
W.  M.  Sloane,  The  Life  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  rev.  and  enlarged  ed.,  4 
vols.  (1910),  confined  largely  to  the  personal  history  of  Napoleon,  with 
special  reference  to  his  earlier  years,  based  upon  source-material,  and  pro- 
fusely illustrated.  J.  C.  Ropes,  The  First  Napoleon  (1900),  a  mihtary  and 
political  outline  by  an  authority  on  several  of  the  great  campaigns  of  the 
emperor.  Pierre  Lanfrey,  The  History  of  Napoleon  the  First,  Eng.  trans., 
2d  ed.,  4  vols.  (1894),  a  severe  arraignment  of  the  character  and  poHcies  of 
Napoleon  by  a  celebrated  French  scholar,  reaches  only  to  the  close  of  the 
year  181 1.  Adolphe  Thiers,  Histoire  du  consulat  et  de  V empire,  20  vols., 
highly  laudatory  of  Napoleon,  and  should  be  read  as  an  antidote  to  Lanfrey  ; 
the  portion  of  the  work  down  to  1807  has  been  translated  into  English  by 
D.  F.  Campbell,  2  vols,  in  i  (1845).  H.  A.  Taine,  The  Modern  Regime, 
Eng.  trans,  by  John  Durand,  2  vols.  (1890-1894),  a  brilliant  and  fascinating 
analysis  of  Napoleon's  genius  and  a  critical  estimate  of  the  importance  of 
the  institutions  established  by  him.  Frederic  Masson,  Napoleon  et  sa 
famille,  5th  ed.,  12  vols.  (1897-1915),  an  encyclopedia  of  information 
concerning  the  emperor's  numerous  relatives,  and,  by  the  same  author. 
Napoleon  a  Sainte-Helene  (1912).  Three  volumes  of  an  elaborate  history 
of  Napoleon  appeared  in  1912-1914,  the  work  of  a  well-known  German 
specialist,  F.  M.  Kircheisen,  Napoleon  I :  sein  Leben  und  seine  Zeit.  See 
also,  on  the  early  life  of  Bonaparte,  Oscar  Browning,  Napoleon :  the  First 
Phase,  lydg-i/gj  (1905) ;  and,  on  his  final  years  at  St.  Helena,  Lord  Rose- 
bery,  Napoleon:  the  Last  Phase  (1900).  An  illuminating  work  is  that  of 
A.  M.  Broadley,  Napoleon  in  Caricature,  iygj~j82i,  with  an  introductory 
essay  by  J.  H.  Rose,  2  vols.  (191 1). 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  579 

Illustrative  Source  Material.  In  addition  to  the  indispensable  Readings 
in  Modern  European  History  by  J.  H.  Robinson  and  C.  A.  Beard  (1909), 
the  following  selections  from  the  masses  of  source  material  are  especially 
serviceable :  D.  A.  Bingham,  A  Selection  from  the  Letters  and  Despatches 
of  the  First  Napoleon,  3  vols.  (1884) ;  Memoirs  of  the  History  of  France 
during  the  Reign  of  Napoleon,  dictated  by  him  at  St.  Helena  to  the  generals 
who  shared  his  captivity,  Eng.  trans.,  2d  ed.,  4  vols.  (1823-1824)  ;  the 
correspondence  of  Napoleon  I,  published  in  French  under  the  auspices  of 
Napoleon  III,  32  vols.  (1858-1870),  and  Napoleon's  military  correspondence 
published  under  the  auspices  of  the  JNlinistry  of  War  of  the  Third  French 
Republic;  Narrative  of  Captain  Coignet,  new  French  ed.  (1909),  Eng.  trans, 
by  Mrs.  Carey,  the  story  of  the  life  of  a  soldier  in  the  ranks.  Of  the  abun- 
dant memoirs  of  the  period,  the  best  are  those  of  Mme.  de  Remusat,  cover- 
ing the  years  1802-1808,  hostile  but  informing,  Eng.  trans,  by  Mrs.  Cashel 
Hoey  and  John  Lillie  (1891) ;  Fauvalet  de  Bourrienne,  Eng.  trans,  by 
J.  S.  Memos,  3  vols.  (1892) ;  Antoine  de  Marbot,  3  vols. ;  C.  F.  de  Meneval, 
covering  the  years  1802-1815,  3  vols.  (1894) ;  A.  F.  Miot  de  Melito,  Eng. 
trans.  (1881) ;  L.  P.  de  Segur,  3  vols;  and  C.  M.  de  Talleyrand-Perigord, 
Eng.  trans.,  5  vols.  (1891-1892).  For  further  bibliographical  suggestions, 
see  F.  M.  Kircheisen,  Bibliography  of  Napoleon  (1902).  An  extended  bib- 
liography is  in  course  of  publication  by  an  Italian  scholar,  Alberto  Lumbroso, 
5  parts  to  date  (1894-1914). 

The  Era  of  Napoleon.  A  very  brief  summary :  Charles  Seignobos, 
History  of  Contemporary  Civilization,  trans,  by  J.  A.  James  (1909),  pp.  150- 
185.  Standard  general  works:  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Vol.  IX  (1906) ; 
Histoire  generale,  V'ol.  IX ;  History  of  All  Nations,  Vol.  XVI,  The  French 
Revolution  and  the  Rise  of  Napoleon,  ch.  viii,  ix,  and  Vol.  XVII,  The  Na- 
poleonic Empire,  by  Theodor  Flathe ;  Wilhelm  Oncken,  Das  Zeitalter  der 
Revolution,  des  Kaiserreiches,  und  der  Befreiungskriege,  2  vols.  (1884-1886); 
Emile  Bourgeois,  Manuel  kistorique  de  politique  etrangere,  4th  ed.,  Vol.  II 
(1909),  ch.  viii-xviii.  Standard  works  on  special  phases  of  the  era :  Armand 
Lefebvre,  Histoire  des  cabinets  de  V Europe  pendant  le  consulat  et  I'empire 
1800-1815,  2d  ed.,  5  vols.  (1866-1869),  an  admirable  diplomatic  history; 
Albert  Sorel,  U Europe  et  la  revolution  franc^aise,  8  vols.  (1885-1904),  a 
standard  authoritative  work,  of  which  Vols.  VI-VIII  treat  of  the  com- 
munication of  revolutionary  ideas  to  Europe  during  the  Era  of  Napoleon ; 
L.  de  Lanzac  de  Laborie,  Paris  sous  Napoleon,  8  vols.  (1905-1913),  invalu- 
able for  a  detailed  study  of  French  life  under  Napoleon ;  Emile  Levasseur, 
Histoire  des  classes  ouvrieres  et  de  I'industrie  en  France  de  lySg  a  18/0,  Vol.  I 
(1903),  Livre  II,  Le  consulat  et  I'empire,  for  social  history;  Jean  Jaures, 
Histoire  sociallste,  lySg-igoo,  Vol.  VI,  by  Paul  Brousse  and  Henri  Turot, 
Le  consulat  et  V empire,  i/qq-i8ij  (1905),  likewise  for  social  history  ;  J.  O.  B. 
de  Cleron  d'Haussonville,  L'eglise  romaine  et  le  premier  empire,  1800-18 14, 
5  vols.  (1868-1869),  for  ecclesiastical  affairs;  Alphonse  Aulard,  Napoleon 
r^  et  la  monopole  universitaire  (191 1),  for  educational  matters;  Henri 
Welschinger,  La  censure  sous  le  premier  empire  (1882),  for  restrictions  on 


58o  HISTORY   OF   MODERN   EUROPE 

personal  liberty  in  France ;  and  for  French  plots  and  attempts  against 
Napoleon,  the  works  of  Ernest  Daudet,  particularly  La  police  ct  les  chouans 
sous  le  considat  et  V empire,  1800-1815  (1895),  Histoire  de  V emigration,  3 
vols.  (1886-1890),  and  Uexil  et  la  mart  du  General  Moreau  (1909) ;  and  Sir 
John  Hall,  General  Pichegru's  Treason  (191 6). 

Military  Campaigns  of  Napoleon.  T.  A.  Dodge,  Napoleon :  a  History 
of  the  Art  of  War,  4  vols.  (1904-1907),  the  work  of  an  American  army  ofificer, 
not  always  accurate,  but  the  best  general  account  in  English  ;  A.  T.  Mahan, 
The  Influence  of  Sea  Power  upon  the  French  Revolution  and  Empire,  1793- 
j8i2,  loth  ed.,  2  vols.  (1898),  a  justly  famous  book,  especially  valuable 
for  the  Continental  System.  Special  campaigns  :  Albert  \^andal,  Napoleon 
et  Alexander  I^,  3d  ed.,  3  vols.  (1893-1896) ;  R.  G.  Burton,  Napoleon's 
Campaigns  in  Italy,  i/gd-iygy  and  1800  (191 2),  and,  by  the  same  author, 
From  Boidogne  to  Austerlitz:  Napoleon's  Campaign  of  1805  (19 12);  the 
works  of  F.  L.  Petre,  particularly  Napoleon's  Conquest  of  Prussia,  1806 
(1907),  Napoleon's  Campaign  in  Poland,  1806-1807  (1906),  Napoleon 
and  the  Archduke  Charles  (1908),  Napoleon's  Last  Campaign  in  Germany, 
181 J  (191 2),  Napoleon  at  Bay  (1914) ;  Henry  Houssaye,  Jena  ct  la  campagne 
de  1806,  with  introduction  by  Louis  Madelin  (1912);  £douard  Driault, 
Austerlitz:  la  fin  du  Saint-Empire,  1804-1808  (1912) ;  Charles  Oman, 
History  of  the  Peninsular  War,  a  monumental  work  extending  to  the  year 
181 2,  5  vols.  (1902-1914),  and,  by  the  same  author,  Wellington's  Army, 
1809-1814  (1912) ;  Hermann  Baumgarten,  Geschichte  Spaniens  vom  Aus- 
bruch  der  franzosischcn  Revolution  bis  aiif  unsere  Tage,  Vol.  I  (1865),  a 
scholarly  German  treatment  of  the  Peninsular  campaign ;  R.  G.  Burton, 
Napoleon's  Invasion  of  Russia  (1914)  ;  F.  W.  O.  Maycock,  The  Invasion 
of  France,  1814  (191 5);  Oscar  Browning,  The  Fall  of  Napoleon  (1907), 
useful  for  the  years  1813-1815  ;  E.  F.  Henderson,  Bliicher  and  the  Uprising 
of  Prussia  against  Napoleon,  1806-18 15  (191 1),  in  the  "Heroes  of  the 
Nations"  Series;  D.  P.  Barton,  Bernadotte :  the  First  Phase,  lydj-iygg 
(1914) ;  A.  F.  Becke,  Napoleon  and  Waterloo,  2  vols.  (1914) ;  J.  C.  Ropes, 
The  Campaign  of  Waterloo,  2d  ed.  (1893). 

The  Germanics  in  the  Era  of  Napoleon.  Brief  accounts :  G.  M.  Priest, 
Germany  since  1740  (191 5),  ch.  iv-vii;  Ferdinand  Schevill,  The  Making 
of  Modern  Germany  (1916),  ch.  iii ;  E.  F.  Henderson,  A  Short  History 
of  Germany,  Vol.  H  (1902),  ch.  vi,  vii,  and,  by  the  same  author,  the  book 
on  Bliicher  listed  in  the  preceding  paragraph ;  C.  T.  Atkinson,  A  History 
of  Germany,  1713-1815  (1908),  almost  exclusively  a  mihtary  history;  H.  A. 
L.  Fisher,  Studies  in  Napoleonic  Statesmanship:  Germany  (1903),  instruc- 
tive and  stimulating.  The  best  and  most  thorough  work  in  English  is 
J.  R.  Seeley,  Life  and  Times  of  Stein,  or  Germany  and  Prussia  in  the  Na- 
poleonic Age,  2  vols.  (1879).  Standard  German  works,  all  highly  patriotic 
in  tone :  Ludwig  Hausser,  Deutsche  Geschichte  vom  Tode  Friedrichs  des 
Grossen  bis  zur  Grilndung  des  dciitschen  Bundes,  4th  ed.,  4  vols.  (1869) ; 
K.  T.  von  Heigel,  Deutsche  Geschichte  vom  Tode  Friedrichs  des  Grossen 
bis  zur  Aufiosung  des  alten  Reiches,  2  vols.  (1899-1911) ;  Hans  von  Zwiedi- 


"LIBERTY,   EQUALITY,   FRATERNITY"  581 

neck-Siidenhorsl ,  Deutsche  Geschichte  von  der  Auflosung  des  alien  bis  zur 
Errichlung  dcs  iieiicn  Kaiscrreiches,  1806-1871 ,  3  vols.  (18Q7-IQ05),  of 
which  Vol.  I  deals  with  the  years  1806-1815;  Heinrich  von  Treitschke, 
Deulsclic  Gcscliichle  im  neunzelinlen  Jahrkundcrt,  5  vols.  (1890-1896),  of 
which  Vol.  I,  in  Eng.  trans.  (1915),  covers  the  period  down  to  1814;  Hein- 
rich Ulmann,  Geschichle  der  Bejreiungskriege,  181  j  und  1814,  2  vols.  (1914- 
1915),  not  so  much  military  as  poUtical  and  diplomatic;  Hans  Delbriick, 
Das  Leben  des  Feldmarschalls  Graf  en  Neidhardl  von  Gnei  senate,  3d  rev.  ed. 
(1913).  A  reliable  French  view  is  that  of  Ernest  Denis,  V Allemagne, 
ijSg-iSio  (1896). 

Great  Britain  in  the  Era  of  Napoleon.  Sir  Herbert  IMaxwell,  .1  Cenlury 
of  Empire,  Vol.  I,  i8oi~iSj2  (1909),  political  and  conservative;  G.  C. 
Broderick  and  J.  K.  Fothcrmgham,  Political  History  of  England,  1801- 
iSj/  (1906),  accurate  but  dry,  containing  valuable  bibliographies;  J.  H. 
Rose,  William  Pitt  and  the  Great  War  (191 1),  a  notable  contribution,  and, 
by  the  same  author,  though  not  so  excellent,  Pitt  and  Napoleon :  Essays 
and  Letters  (191 2);  W.  C.  Russell,  Horatio  Nelson  (1890),  a  convenient 
httle  biography  in  the  "  Heroes  of  the  Nations  "  Series;  A.  T.  ISIahan,  The 
Life  of  Nelson,  the  Embodiment  of  the  Sea  Power  of  Great  Britain,  2  vols. 
(1897),  a  standard  work;  J.  S.  Corbett,  Campaign  of  Trafalgar  (1913), 
with  reference  to  Pitt  more  than  to  Nelson ;  A.  T.  Mahan,  Sea  Power  in 
its  Relation  to  the  War  of  1812,  2  vols.  (1905) ;  J.  W.  Fortescue,  History 
of  the  British  Army,  Vols.  IV-VII  (1906-1912),  a  monumental  work  on  the 
British  military  campaigns  from  1793  to  1810;  Sir  W.  L.  Clowes  (editor). 
The  Royal  Navy :  a  History,  Vol.  IV  (1899),  ch.  xxxiv-xxxvii,  for  the  years 
1792-1802,  and  Vol.  V  (1900),  for  1803-1815;  J.  W.  Fortescue,  British 
Statesmen  of  the  Great  War,  I7qj~i8i4  (191  i),  derogatory  of  Pitt  and  marked 
by  zealous  prejudice  in  favor  of  other  Tory  statesmen,  especially  Castle- 
reagh  and  Liverpool ;  Sir  Herbert  Maxwell,  The  Life  of  Wellington,  2  vols. 
(1899);  W.  O'C.  Morris,  Wellington,  Soldier  and  Statesman  (1904),  in 
"Heroes  of  the  Nations"  Series;  F.  J.  MacCunnan,  The  Contemporary 
English  View  of  Napoleon  (1914),  an  interesting  compilation. 


INDEX 


Abjuration,  (Dutch)  Act  of,  g6. 

Academy,  French,  195,  240,  418. 

Academy  of  Science,  Berlin,  443. 

Acadia,  301,  307-309. 

Act  of  Supremacy  (English),  153. 

Act  of  Union  with  Ireland  (British),  431. 

Act  of  Union  with  Scotland  (Enghsh),  289, 
430. 

Africa,  Portuguese  in,  50-5 1 ;  Dutch  in,  59 ; 
English  and  French  in,  302. 

Agriculture,  in  sixteenth  century,  28-36,  69- 
70;  in  eighteenth  century,  395-399;  in 
France  under  Sully,  210-211;  under 
Colbert,  239;  effect  of  Commercial  Revo- 
lution on,  68. 

Aix-la-Chapelle,  peace  of  (1668),  244; 
(1748),  311,  357- 

Alais,  Edict  of,  214. 

Albany  Congress,  326. 

Albigensians,  123. 

Albuquerque,  55. 

Alcabala,  57,  90. 

Aldine  Press,  179. 

Alexander  I,  of  Russia,  537-539,  540,  556, 
558-560,  562,  566-567. 

Alexander  VI,  Pope,  16,  55. 

Alexandria,  114. 

Alsace,  227,  228,  357. 

Alva,  duke  of,  93,  94. 

Ambassadors,  first  sent  regularly  by  Venice, 
17,  231.  _ 

America,  discovery  of,  18,  53-54;  Dutch  in, 
59;  EngUsh  in,  59-60,  300-301;  French 
in,  60,  300-301;  Portuguese  in,  55,  59  n.; 
Spanish  in,  55-57,  87. 

American  Independence,  War  of,  332-337. 

Amiens,  treaty  of,  527,  536. 

Amsterdam,  95,  96. 

Anabaptists,  134-135,  145,  148  n.  (See 
Baptists.) 

AngUcanism,  in  sixteenth  century,  148-156, 
172-173;  and  John  Knox,  146-147;  and 
James  I,  267-268;  and  Charles  I,  273- 
274;  and  Cromwell,  280;  and  James  II, 
287  ;  and  Queen  Anne,  290 ;  in  eighteenth 
century,  410. 

Anne,  of  Great  Britain,  252,  289,  290. 

Anthony,  of  Navarre,  102. 


Antioch,  114. 

Antwerp,  66,  93,  95,  96. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  118,  159. 

Aragon,  8,  9,  76,  90,  91.     (See  Spain.) 

Arcliitccture,  in  sixteenth  century,  186-187. 

Arians,  123. 

Ariosto,  194. 

Aristotle,  176,  200. 

Armada,  Spanish,  100,  262,  304. 

Armed  Neutrahty  of  the  North,  (1780),  334; 
(1800),  526,  527. 

Arndt,  557. 

Arras,  treaty  of,  95. 

Art,  in  sixteenth  century,  185-192,  202 ; 
and  Colbert,  240. 

Artois,  count  of,  467,  487,  488,  491. 

Asia.     {See  India,  etc.) 

Asiento,  309,  312. 

Assembly,  Legislative  (1791-1792),  494-501. 

Assembly,  National  Constituent  (1789-1791), 
473-474,  476-486,  494,  503.  512.  513- 

Assembly  of  Notables,  460. 

Assignals,  483,  513,  514. 

Astrology,  197. 

Augsburg,  confession  of,  136,  139,  146;  diet 
of,  136;  religious  peace  of,  136,  220,  227; 
War  of  the  League  of,  247-249,  289,  306- 
307. 

"August  Days"  (1789),  480-481. 

Augustus  II,  of  Saxony  and  Poland,  377. 

Augustus  III,  of  Saxony  and  Poland,  385. 

Austerlitz,  battle  of,  538-539.  546,  554.  573- 

AustraUa,  340. 

Austria,  in  sixteenth  century,  13,  76;  reli- 
gion of,  163  ;  in  seventeenth  century,  219- 
229;  in  eighteenth  century,  344-345.  444~ 
448;  and  Napoleon,  554-555.  559-560. 
{See  Habsburg  Family;  Holy  Roman 
Empire.) 

Austrian  Succession,  War  of,  311,  316,  355- 
357.  456. 

Avignon,  121. 

Azores,  51. 

Azov,  379,  386. 

Aztec  Indians,  56. 


Babeuf,  513. 

"Babylonian  Captivity,"  121,  132. 


583 


584 


INDEX 


Bacon,   Francis   (Lord),    162,   196-197,   200, 

415- 

Bacon,  Roger  (Friar),  200. 

Baden,  135,  146,  542. 

"Baffin,  60. 

"Balance  of  Power,"  75,  80,  97,  244,  250. 

Balboa,  54. 

Balearic  Islands,  106. 

Baltimore,  Lord,  300. 

Banking,  in  sixteenth  century,  66. 

Bank  of  France,  529. 

Baptism,  iiS. 

Baptists,  148  n.,  167,  411.  {See  Ana- 
baptists.) 

"Barebone's  Parliament,"  279. 

Barry,  Madame  dii,  457. 

Basel,  council  of,  116;   treaty  of,  506. 

Bastille,  457 ;   destruction  of,  475-476,  478. 

Batavian  Republic,  506,  534. 

"Battle  of  Saints,"  335,  336. 

"Battle  of  the  Nations,"  558,  564. 

Bavaria,  162,  220-222,  228,  352-353,  538, 
539,  542,  555. 

Beachy  Head,  307. 

Beaton,  Cardinal,  146. 

Beauharnais,  Eugene,  534,  541. 

Beauharnais,  Josephine,  514,  555. 

Beccaria,  421,  424-425,  465. 

"Bed  of  Justice,"  217-218. 

"Beggars"  of  Netherlands,  92,  94. 

Belgium.     (See  Netherlands.) 

Belgrade,  80. 

Benedictines,  115. 

"Benevolences,"  5. 

Berg,  543. 

Berlin,  347,  349 ;   captured  by  Russians,  360. 

Berlin  Decree,  548. 

Berlin,  University  of,  557. 

Bernadotte,  General,  541,  560,  564,  565,  575. 

Bible,  and  CathoUc  Church,  159;  Erasmus 
and,  129,  183;  first  printed,  179;  French 
translation  of,  143;  German  translations 
of,  133 ;  King  James's  version  of,  195 ; 
Luther's  translation  of,  195,  353;  and 
Protestantism,  129,  165;    Vulgate,  160. 

Bill  of  Rights,  288,  482. 

Black  Sea,  Turkish  control  of,  80. 

Blake,  Admiral,  304. 

Blenheim,  battle  of,  253. 

Blucher,  564,  565,  570-571- 

Boccaccio,  194. 

Bohemia,  in  sixteenth  century,  76,  87 ;  reli- 
gion in,  162;  revolt  of,  221.  (See  Habs- 
burg  Family  ;    Holy  Roman  Empire.) 

Boleyn,  Anne,  98,  151-152. 

Bombay,  303. 

Bonaparte  Family,  genealogy  of,  577. 

Bonaparte,  Jerome,  534,  541,  543,  549,  564. 


Bonaparte,  Joseph,  534,  541,  549,  552-553, 
557,  565.  S76._ 

Bonaparte,  Louis,  534,  549,  550. 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon.     (See  Napoleon  L) 

Borgia,  Cesare,  16. 

Borodino,  battle  of,  561. 

Bossuet,  235-236,  237,  263,  535. 

"Boston  Massacre,"  330. 

"Boston  Tea  Party,"  331. 

Botany  Bay,  340. 

Bothwell,  earl  of,  99. 

Bougainville,  Louis  de,  417. 

Bourbon  Family,  origin  of,  77,  102-105; 
genealogy  of,  108,  258;  struggle  of,  with 
Habsburgs,  218-232,  249-256,  356-357, 
542  ;   alliance  of,  with  Habsburgs,  358. 

Bourgeoisie,  or  Middle  Class,  69 ;  and 
Calvinism,  loi,  144,  146,  148;  and  Puri- 
tan Revolution  in  England,  269-270,  275, 
292-293  ;  in  France  under  Henry  IV,  211 ; 
in  France  under  Louis  XIV,  238;  decline 
of,  in  Germany  in  seventeenth  century, 
343  ;  general  rise  of,  in  eighteenth  century, 
393""394>  402-403,  426,  449;  and  French 
Revolution,  464,  467-469,  471,  489-490, 
505,  510,  512,  513,  518;  and  Napoleon, 
533,  537- 

Bourges,  Pragmatic  Sanction  of,  121. 

Boyne,  battle  of  the,  288  n.,  307. 

Braddock,  General,  313. 

Braganza,  duke  of,  91. 

Brandenburg,  12,  224,  225,  228,  245,  254, 
347~350-     (See  Prussia.) 

Brazil,  54,  55,  59,  551. 

Breitenfeld,  battle  of,  226. 

Brissot,  498,  503,  509. 

Brittany,  6,  451  n.,  488. 

Brumaire,  Eighteenth,  517. 

Bruno,  Giordano,  199  n. 

Brunswick,  duke  of,  499-501,  539. 

Bucharest,  387  ;   treaty  of,  559. 

Buckingham,  duke  of,  271,  272. 

Budapest,  81. 

Bufion,  417. 

Bulgaria,  in  1500,  23. 

Bulls,  Papal,  116  n. 

Bundschuhe,  134. 

Burgoyne,  General,  i^^. 

Burgundy,  county  of  (Franche  Comt6),  87, 
246;  duchy  of,  6,  20,  77,  78,  79. 

Burke,  Edmund,  339,  495. 

Bute,  Lord,  292,  327. 

Cabinet  (English),  rise  of,  290,  435-436. 
Cabot,  John  and  Sebastian,  5,  54,  59,  262, 

300. 
Cabral,  54,  55. 
Cahicrs,  470,  486. 


INDEX 


585 


Calais,  lost  to  England,  So  n.,  gS,  102. 

Calculus,  41(3. 

Calcutta,  316. 

Calendar,  French  Revolutionary,   510. 

Calicut,  51. 

C'alifornia,  56. 

Calmar,  Union  of,  21. 

Calonne,  459,  460. 

Calvin,  i2g,  141-142,  172,  194,  408. 

Calvinism,  rise  of,  139-148;  and  Thirty 
Years'  War,  220,  229;  in  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, 410,  411,  413;  in  England,  156,  268; 
in  Holland,  92,  95;  in  Scotland,  99,  146; 
in  France,  see  Huguenots. 

Cambrai,  League  of,  18 ;   peace  of,  79. 

Camoens,  195. 

Campo  Formio,  treaty  of,  515,  516,  526,  537. 

Canada,  301,  312-315,  317.  325-326,  337. 

Canning,  George,  548,  553. 

Canon  Law,  116. 

Capet,  Hugh,  6. 

Capitation,  454-455- 

Cardinals,  113-114. 

Carlstadt,  135. 

Carnatic,  316-317. 

Carnot,  503,  505,  506,  507,  543. 

Carrier,  508. 

Cartier,  54,  60,  300. 

Castile,  8,  9,  75,  go,  91.     (See  Spain.) 

Castlereagh,  Lord,  548. 

Cateau-Cambr^sis,  treaty  of,  98,  105. 

Cathedral,  114. 

Catherine  of  Aragon,  5,  151,  152,  154. 

Catherine  of  Braganza,  303. 

Catherine  de'   Medici,  of  France,    101-104, 

197- 

Catherine  II  (the  Great),  of  Russia,  334,  361, 
379-388,  419,  443,  4g5. 

Catholic  Church,  defined,  113,  11 7-1 18;  in 
1500,  112-124,  170;  abuses  in,  127-12S; 
reformation  of,  156-164;  and  Protestan- 
tism, 124-169;  in  England,  79,  98,  148- 
156,  267-269,  273,  280,  282-287,  289;  in 
France,  104-105,  141-142,  144-145;  in 
Holy  Roman  Empire,  11,  84-86,  1 31-13  6, 
220-229,  346;  in  Netherlands,  92-95, 
145-146;  in  Scandinavia,  137-139;  in 
Scotland,  146-147 ;  in  Spain,  88-90,  97, 
loo-ioi ;  in  Switzerland,  139-141 ;  in 
eighteenth  centuiy,  406-410;  and  French 
Revolution,  483-484,  506,  521 ;  and  Napo- 
leon, 529,  531,  550;  and  art,  185,  190-191 ; 
and  banking,  65-66 ;  and  colonization,  61 ; 
and  culture,  176;  and  humanism,  184; 
and  international  law,  231;  and  national- 
ism, 120-122,  125;   and  society,  28,  35. 

"Catholic  League,"  in  Thirty  Years'  War, 
222,  224,  352. 


"Cavaliers,"  275,  280. 

Cavendish,  Henry,  417. 

Cavendish,  Thomas,  60. 

Cervantes,  106,  195. 

"Chambers  of  Reunion,"  247. 

Champlain,  211. 

Champlain,  Lake,  30S,  310,  313. 

Chancellor,  60. 

Chandarnagar,  304,  316,  319. 

Charlemagne,  ii,  16. 

Charles,  Archduke  (Austrian  general),  554. 

Charles  V,  Emperor  (Charles  I,  of  Spain),  7, 

58,  60,  74-87,  91,  133,  14s,  152,  161,  163, 

190,  197. 
Charles  VI,  Emperor  (Archduke  Charles  of 

.'\ustria),  252-253,  344-346,  353,  355- 
Charles  VII,  Emperor  (Elector  of  Bavaria), 

355,  357- 
Charles  (the  Bold),  of  Burgundy,  13,  20. 
Charles  I,  of  England,  191,  270-276,  296-297. 
Charles  II,  of  England,  245,   277,   281-286, 

297,  303,  435- 

Charles,  Prince  (Young  Pretender),  291. 

Charles  VII,  of  France,  121. 

Charles  VIII,  of  France,  6,  7,  19,  183,  186. 

Charles  IX,  of  France,  loi. 

Charles  I,  of  Spain.  (See  Charles  V,  Em- 
peror.) 

Charles  II,  of  Spain,  243,  24g-25i. 

Charles  III,  of  Spain,  444. 

Charles  IV,  of  Spain,  506,  551-552,  576. 

Charles  XI,  of  Sweden,  376  n. 

Charles  XII,  of  Sweden,  376-379. 

Charles  XIII,  of  Sweden,  541. 

ChateauroiLx,  duchess  of,  457. 

Chaumont,  treaty  of,  566. 

Chauvin,  327  n. 

Chemistr>',  417. 

Christian  II,  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  137. 

Christian  III,  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  137. 

Christian  IV,  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  223. 

Church  and  State,  in  sixteenth  century,  112, 
120-122,  167-169;  in  eighteenth  century, 
406-407;  in  Russia,  372;  separation  of, 
in  France,  511. 

Church  of  England.     (See  Anglicanism.) 

Cisalpine  Republic,  516,  534. 

Cities,  in  sixteenth  century,  36-43,  48-49, 
6g;   in  eighteenth  century,  3g9-402. 

City-States,  14-20,  24. 

"Civil  Constitution  of  the  Clergy,"  484. 

Clement  VII,  Pope,  79,  152,  158. 

Clergy,  Regular,  114-115;   Secular,  114. 

Cleves,  348. 

Clive,  316-317,  338,  359- 

Code  Napoleon,  530,  543,  574. 

Colbert,  237-241,  305,  306,  400-401. 

Colet,  John,  149. 


586  INDEX 

Coligny,  Admiral  de,  103.  Convention,    National     (French),     501-512, 
College  de  France,  183,  194.  S14,  S24.  53°,  544- 

Colonization,   in   sixteenth   century,    55-61,  "Convention  Parliament,"  281. 

70-72;    in  seventeenth  century,  211,  240,  Cook,  Captain  James,  340,  417. 

268-270,  299-306;   in  eighteenth  century,  Copenhagen,  battle  of,  527,  546,  549. 

250-251,    306-319,   324-327;    and  Napo-  "Copernican  System,"  198-199. 

leon,  532,  567  n.,  575-576;   Russian,  367.  Copernicus,  198,  415. 

Columbus,  9,  53-56,  72.  Corday,  Charlotte,  492  n. 

Commerce,   before   1500,   17-18,  43-49;    in  Cordelier  Club,  491,  492. 

sixteenth  century,  52,  56,  59,  62-69;    in  Corneille,  237. 

eighteenth   century,  399,  401-403 ;     as  a  Cornwallis,  Lord,  334,  339. 

factor    in    modern    society,    xix-xx,    27;  Corporation  Act;  285. 

British,  loo-ioi,   250-251,   261,  262,  269-  Corsica,  457  n.,  524. 

270,  277-278,  280,  292,  309,  310,  318,  322-  Cortes,  of  Portugal,  8. 

331.    33^!    341;    French,    211,    239;    and  Cortes,  of  Spain,  9,  89-90,  558. 

Russian  expansion,  374;  and  the  Napole-  Cortez,  Plernando,  56. 

onic  Wars,  536,  546-551.  576.     {See  Mer-  Corvee,  31,  398. 

cantilism.)  Cossacks,  367. 

Commercial  Revolution,  62-69.  Coster,  Lourens,  179. 

Common  Prayer,  Book  of,  154-155,  195.  "Council  of  Blood,"  93. 

Commons,     House     of.     {See     ParUament,  Council  of  Regency,  in  Holy  Roman  Empire, 

EngUsh.)  83-85. 

Commonwealth,  British,  276-279.  "Council  of  Troubles,"  93. 

Commune,  during  French  Revolution,  475.  Councils,     Church,     115-116.     {See    Trent, 
Compte  Rendu,  of  Necker,  459  n.  Council  of.) 

Concordat,  of  1801,  529-  Coup  d'etat,  517,  523,  525. 

Conde,  Henry,  prince  of,  102.  Courts,  ecclesiastical,  121. 

Conde,   Louis  II,   prince  of,    218,    228-230,  Covenant,  Scotch,  273-274. 

237,  241,  249.  Cracow,  361,  377. 

Condorcet,  498,  503,  511.  Cranmer,  129,  152,  154,  155,  195. 

Condottieri,  17.  Crete,  106. 

Confederation,    American    Articles   of,    332,  Cromwell,   Oliver,    64,    230,    274,    276-281, 

336.  297. 

Confederation  of  the  Rliine,   542-543,  549,  Cromwell,  Richard,  281. 

560,  563,  564.  Crown  Point,  309,  313. 

Confession,  119.  Crusades,  commercial  importance  of,  44. 

Confirmation,  118,  166.  Cuba,  56,  315. 

Congregational  Church,  411.  Curia,  Roman,  114,  116,  121,  126-128,  407; 
Constance,  Council  of,  116,  132.  attacked  by  Luther,  133  ;  and  Galileo,  199. 

Constantine    XI,    Graeco-Roman    Emperor,  Cyprus,  106. 

52,  368  n. 

Constantinople,   capture  of,   by  Turks,   52;  Dante,  15,  181,  194. 

Orthodox  Christianity  at,  22,  114.  Danton,  491-494,  498,  500-501,  503,  509- 

Constituent      Assembly.     {See      Assembly,  Dardanelles,  387. 

National  Constituent.)  Darnley,  99. 

Constitution,  British,  264-265,  279,  282,  292,  Davis,  54,  60. 

296,  432;    French,  of  1791,  485-486,  530;  Declaration  of  Independence  (United  States), 

French,  of  Year  III,  502,  510-512  ;  French,        332,  482. 

of  Year  VIII,  525-526,  528;    project  of  a  "Declaration  of  Indulgence,"  285,  287. 

Russian,  443;    Spanish,  of  1812,  557-558;  Declaratory  Act,  330. 

of  United  States,  336,  422,  485.  Decretals,  115  n. 

Constitutional  Charter,  French,  of  1814,  567-  "Defender  of  the  Faith,"  151. 

568.  Deism,  413-414,  420,  429. 

Consubstantiation,  166.  Demarcation,  papal  bull  of,  55,  116. 

Consulate,  French,  517,  523-534-  Democracy,  idea  of,  xx,  465. 

Continental  Congress,  American,  331-332.  Denmark,    Protestant    Revolt   in,    137;    m 
"Continental  System,"  546-549-  Thirty  Years'  War,  223-224;  and  Charles 

Conventicle  Act,  285.  XII   of   Sweden,   376-377;    and   "Armed 


INDEX 


587 


Neutrality  of  North,"  334,  526-527;   and 

Napoleon,  548-540 ;   loss  of  Norway,  564. 
Descartes,  107,  200-201,  415. 
Desmovilins,  474,  402,  500. 
Despotism,  Benevolent  or  Enlightened,  440- 

448,  462. 
Devolution,  War  of,  243-244. 
DeWitt,  John,  245. 
Diaz,  Bartholomew,  51. 
Diaz,  Denis,  51. 
Diderot,  380,  4ig,  421,  443. 
Diet,  of  Holy  Roman  Empire,  12,  83,  228, 

342,    541-542.     (See    Spcyer,    Diets    of; 

and  Worms,  Diets  of.) 
Diocese,  114. 

"Diplomatic  Revolution,"  359. 
Directory,  French,  512-517,  543. 
Discoveries.     (See  Exploration.) 
Dispensations,  ecclesiastical,  126. 
Dissenters,  156,  270,  284-285. 
Divine  Right,  theory  of,  235-236,  263-264, 

287,  292,  433,  440,  448,  465,  468,  473. 
Dogma,  118. 

"Domestic  System,"  in  industry,  42. 
Dominicans,  115. 
Donatello,  187. 
Doria,  Andrea,  18. 
Dover,  treaty  of,  284. 
Drake,  60. 

Duma,  Russian,  373. 
Dumouriez,  498,  501,  504,  509. 
Dunkirk,  230,  280. 
Dupleix,  310-312,  315-316. 
Duquesne,  Fort,  313,  314. 
Diirer,  1 90-191. 
Dutch.     (See  Netherlands.) 
Dutch  Reformed  Church,  145. 
Dutch  War,  244-246,  349. 

East  India  Company,  Dutch,   64,  73,  401 ; 

English,  60,  64-65,  71,  73,  303,  330,  337, 

339,  401  ;    French,  64,  73,  401. 
"  Ecclesiastical  Reservation,"  136,  220. 
Eck,  Johann,  132. 
Education,   and   Cahdn,   143 ;    and  Jesuits, 

162;   and  Rousseau,  424;   in  Prussia,  441, 

557;   and  Napoleon,  530-531. 
Edward,  Fort,  313. 
Edward  I,  of  England,  265. 
Edward  VI,  of  England,  147,  154,  262. 
Egmont,  count  of,  93. 
Egj'pt,  Napoleon  in,  515-516. 
Elba,  Napoleon  at,  566,  568-570. 
Elector,  Great.     {See  Frederick  William,  of 

Brandenburg.) 
Electricity,  416-417. 
EHzabeth,  of  England,  96,  98-99,  105,  148, 

15s,  162,  173,  262-263,  267. 


Elizabeth,  of  Russia,  358,  360. 

Emancipation,  edict  of  (Prussian),  556. 

Emigres,  487,  494,  499,  507- 

Empire.  {See  Holy  Roman  Empire; 
Austria ;  France,  under  Napoleon.) 

Kiicydopcd'ui,  458. 

Enghien,  due  d',  533. 

England,  in  1500,  3-6;  in  sixteenth  century, 
17,  97-101,  147-156;  in  seventeenth 
centurv',  261-293,  295-296;  and  wars  of 
Louis  XIV,  244-245,  248,  254;  in  eight- 
eenth century,  289-293,  298,  430-440,  461- 
462;  and  French  Revolution,  469,  470, 
494-495,  504,  506,  507,  515,  521;  and 
Napoleon,  536-573,  575-576,  581 ;  and 
early  colonization,  59-60,  300-305 ;  colo- 
nial struggle  with  France,  306-321 ;  colo- 
nial poUcy  in  eighteenth  century,  322-331 ; 
loss  of  American  colonies,  332-337 ;  ex- 
tent of  empire  in  1800,  337-340,  430-431  n. 

"EnHghtened  Despots,"  495. 

Episcopal  Church,  148.     {See  Anglicanism.) 

Erasmus,  129,  149,  157,  183-184,  190,  193, 
201. 

Estates-General,  of  France,  7,  102,  144,  212, 
469-470;  (1614),  211;  decline  of,  213, 
235 ;  and  French  Revolution,  460-461, 
469-474- 

Esthonia,  374,  376,  378. 

Eucharist,  Holy,  119. 

Eugene  of  Savoy,  Prince,  253,  308. 

Exclusion  Bill,  285. 

Exploration,  xix-xx,  49-54,  70-72,  339-341, 
417. 

Extreme  Unction,  119. 

Factory-System,  compared  to  serfdom,  35. 

"Family  Compact,"  360. 

"Farming  the  Taxes,"  238. 

Farnese,  Alexander,  Duke  of  Parma,  95, 
100. 

Febronianism,  409. 

Ferdinand,  of  Aragon,  5,  8,  9,  13,  16,  24,  74, 
188. 

Ferdinand  I,  Emperor,  76,  81,  87. 

Ferdinand  II,  Emperor,  221-224. 

Ferdinand  I,  of  Naples,  571  n. 

Ferdinand  VII,  of  Spain,  551,  568,  576. 

Feuillants,  497. 

Fichte,  557. 

Finland,  acquired  by  Russia,  540. 

First  CoaUtion,  during  French  Revolution, 
506,  515. 

Fisher,  John,  153. 

Five-mile  Act,  285. 

Flanders  and  Flemish,  95.  {See  Nether- 
lands.) 

Fleury,  Cardinal,  255-256,  456. 


588 


INDEX 


Florence,  city-state  of,  i8,  47,  79.  (See 
Tuscany.) 

Florence,  council  of,  116. 

Florida,  56,  317,  336. 

Fontainebleau,  Decree,  548;  treaty  of,  566, 
S68. 

Fouche,  532,  544. 

Fox,  Charles  James,  438,  546. 

Fox,  George,  411. 

France,  in  1500,  6-7 ;  in  sixteenth  century, 
18,  96,  101-105,  no,  141-142,  144-145, 
163 ;  in  seventeenth  century,  209-249, 
258-260;  in  eighteenth  century,  249-256, 
449-461,  463 ;  and  colonial  struggle  with 
England,  299-321,  334-336;  in  the  Revo- 
lution, 464-522;  under  Consulate,  523- 
533;   under  Empire,  534-581. 

Franche  Comte,  87.     (See  Burgundy.) 

Francis  I,  Emperor  of  Austria.  (See  Fran- 
cis II,  Emperor.) 

Francis  II,  Emperor,  499,  537,  538,  542,  554- 
555- 

Francis  I,  of  France,  7,  60,  75-80,  84,  loi- 
102,  141-142,  183,  186,  188,  189,  190,  194, 
197,  242,  542. 

Francis  II,  of  France,  99,  loi. 

Franciscans,  50,  115. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  326,  s^St  416. 

Frederick,  elector  palatine  of  Rhine,  220, 
222,  229. 

Frederick  I,  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  137. 

Frederick  II  (the  Great),  of  Prussia,  313,  351, 
354-362,  364-365,  380  n.,  385,  387,  419, 
441-445,  496,  SSS- 

Frederick  William  (the  Great  Elector),  of 
Brandenburg,  348-349. 

Frederick  William  I,  of  Prussia,  350-351,  441. 

Frederick  WilHam  II,  of  Prussia,  448,  496, 
4Q9,  543- 

Frederick  William  III,  of  Prussia,  538-539, 
555,  562. 

Free-tenantry,  rise  of,  31. 

French  and  Indian  War,  312-319,  325,  326, 
333,  359- 

Friars,  115. 

Friedland,  battle  of,  539. 

I'riends,  Society  of,  411. 

Frobisher,  54,  60. 

Fronde,  217-218. 

Frontenac,  325. 

Gabelle,  398,  455. 

Galicia,  annexed  by  Austria,  361 ;  and  Napo- 
leon, 555. 
Galileo,  199,  415. 
Galvani,  416. 

Gama,  Vasco  da,  51-52,  55,  72,  195,  303. 
Geneva,  142-143,  147. 


Genoa,  18,  47,  106,  534. 

George  I,  of  Great  Britain,    289-291,  326, 

354,  436. 
George  II,  of  Great  Britain,  291-292,  311  n., 

354.  436. 
George  III,  of  Great  Britain,  326-328,  330, 

436-439- 
Georgia,  311. 
Germany,  early  nationalism  in,  81-84;   after 

Thirty   Years'   War,    229;    in   eighteenth 

century,    342-362 ;    and   Napoleon,    541- 

543.     (See    Austria;     Habsburg    Family; 

Holy  Roman  Empire ;    Prussia.) 
Ghent,  Pacification  of,  94. 
Ghibellines,  15. 
Ghiberti,  187. 

Gibraltar,  253,  308,  309,  334. 
Gilbert,  59. 

Gilds,  Craft,  40-42,  70,  262,  399-400;   Mer- 
chant, 37-40,  70. 
Girondists,  497-498,  502-503,  509. 
"Glorious   Revolution,"    286-288,    306-307, 

466. 
Gneisenau,  556. 
Goa,  55. 
Godoy,  551. 
Goethe,  443. 
Golden  Fleece,  86. 
"Good  Works,"  131. 
Granada,  8,  9,  75,  91. 
Grand  Alliance,  252. 
"Grand  Design,"  210. 
"Grand    Monarch."     (See    Louis    XIV,    of 

France.) 
"Grand  Remonstrance,"  275. 
Grasse,  Count  de,  335. 
Gratian,  116. 
Gravitation,  416. 
Great    Britain,    289,    430.     (See    England; 

Scotland.) 
"Great  Protestation,"  267. 
"Great  Rebellion,"  274-281. 
Greece,  23,  386. 
Greek,  study  of,  182-183,  193. 
Greek  Church.     (See  Orthodox  Church.) 
Grenada,  317. 
Grenville,  327-329. 
Grotius,  232. 
Guelphs,  15. 
Guiana,  59  n. 
Guillotine,  508. 
(juinea,  302  n. 
Guise  Family,  102-105,  108. 
Gustavus    I    (Vasa),   of   Sweden,    137-138, 

224. 
Gustavus  II   (Adolphus),  of  Sweden,    224- 

226,  374. 
Gustavus  III,  of  Sweden,  444. 


INDEX 


589 


Gustavus  IV,  of  Sweden,  540. 
Gutenberg,  Johan,  179. 

Habeas  Corpus  Act,  285,  432. 

Habsburg  Family,  origin  of,  13;  genealogy 
of,  107;  in  sixteenth  contury,  20,  24,  76, 
79,  87,  95,  163,  109;  dominions  of,  in  1600, 
219;  humiliation  of,  in  Thirty  Years' 
War,  229-230;  in  eighteenth  century, 
344-347,  363-364;  rivalry  of,  with  Bour- 
bon Family,  213,  217-232,  242-256,  355- 
357;  alliance  of,  with  Bourbon  Family, 
358-359,  459;  rivalry  of,  with  Hohenzol- 
lern  Family,  347-362  ;  and  French  Revolu- 
tion, 495-496,  499 ;  and  Napoleon,  542,  555. 

Hague,  96. 

Haiti,  56,  532. 

Haller,  Albrecht  von,  417. 

Hampden,  John,  272-274. 

Hanover,  354,  356,  358,  360,  534,  543. 

Hanoverian  Family,  289;  genealogy  of,  295. 

Hanse  (Hanseatic  League),  49,  62,  70,  83,  343'. 

Hardenberg,  555.  556. 

Hastings,  Warren,  339. 

Hawke,  315. 

Hawkins,  60,  67. 

Helgesen,  138,  184. 

Helvetic  Republic.     (See  Switzerland.) 

Henrietta  Maria,  270. 

Henr>'  IH,  of  England,  266. 

Henry  VII,  of  England,  4-6,  24,  54,  150, 
188,  262. 

Henry  VIII,  of  England,  6,  75,  79,  84,  86,  98, 
no,  147,  150-154,  262,  410. 

Henry  II,  of  France,  79,  101-103,  242. 

Henry  III,  of  France,  loi,  104-105. 

Henry  IV,  of  France  (Henry  of  Navarre), 
104-105,  144,  209-211,  214,  232-233,  242, 
305,  542. 

Henr>',  duke  of  Guise,  104-105. 

Henr>-  (the  Navigator),  Prince,  of  Portugal, 
8,51,72. 

Heresy,  123,  136,  407,  408. 

"Heriot,"  31. 

Hierarchy,  of  Catholic  Chiu-ch,  113. 

"High  Church"  (Anglican),  166. 

High  Commission,  Court  of,  156,  274. 

Hobbes,  196. 

Hofmann,  Melchior,  135  n. 

Hohenlinden,  battle  of,  526. 

Hohenzollern  Family,  origin  of,  347 ;  gen- 
ealogy of,  363 ;  electors  of  Brandenburg, 
229,  347-349;  kings  of  Prussia,  254,  349- 
352;  rivalry  of,  with  Habsburg  Family, 
354-362. 

Holland.      (See  Netherlands,  Dutch.) 

"Holy  League,"  17. 

Holy  Orders,  119,  166. 


Holy  Roman  Empire,  in  1500,  10-14,  15,  17, 
21,  24;  in  si.xteenth  century,  75-77,  79, 
81-S6,  ^,  102,  117;  and  rise  of  Luthcr- 
anism,  133-136;  and  Thirty  Years'  War, 
220-229;  and  international  law,  231 ;  and 
Louis  XIV,  of  France,  243,  247,  253-254 ; 
in  eighteenth  century,  342-346;  Napoleon 
and  dissolution  of,  515,  537,  541-543. 

Holy  Synod  (Russian),  372. 

Hooker,  Richard,  196. 

Horn,  count  of,  93. 

Hubertusburg,  treaty  of,  360. 

Hudson,  Henry,  54,  59. 

Hudson  Hay,  300,  309,  401. 

Huguenots,  101-105,  143.  144-145,  209,  213- 
214,  241-242,  271,  306,  349,  408. 

Humanism,  180-184,  i93,  201. 

Humboldt,  Wilhelm  von,  557. 

"Hundred  Days,"  569-570. 

Hundred  Years'  War,  4,  6,  150. 

"Hundred  Years'  War,  Second,"  248. 

Flungary,  in  1500,  23;  accession  of  Habs- 
burgs  to,  76;  and  Turks,  80-81,  87,  106, 
383;  and  religion,  162;  and  Maria 
Theresa,  355-356;  and  Joseph  II,  447. 

Hunter,  John,  417. 

Hus,  John,  123,  128,  129,  132. 

Hutten,  Ulrich  von,  84-85,  128-129. 

Hyder  Ah,  335. 

Illyrian  Provinces,  555,  564. 

Inclosures,  in  England,  32. 

Independents  (English),    148,   156,  275-280. 

Index,  ecclesiastical,  160. 

India,  medieval  trade  with,  43-47  ;  in  seven- 
teenth century,  302-304,  321;  Portuguese 
in,  51-53,  55;  Dutch  in,  59,  64;  French 
in,  240,  303-304,  310,  311,  315-319; 
English  in,  60,  64-65,  303,  311,  316-319, 
337-339- 

Indians,  American,  56,  61,  67,  306,  307,  308, 
312-314- 

"Indulgences,"  131,  159. 

Industrial  Revolution,  318,  412,  576. 

Industrj',  in  sixteenth  century,  40-42,  67-68, 
69;  in  eighteenth  century,  399-403,  425- 
426.     (See  Mercantilism.) 

Inquisition,  ecclesiastical,  90,  92,  145,  160, 
443,  552- 

Inslitiites,  Calvin's,  142,  194. 

"Instrument  of  Government,"  279. 

Intendants,  in  France,  215-216,  450,  482, 
528. 

Inkrcursus  Magnus,  5,  262. 

"Intolerable  Acts,"  331. 

Ireland,  3,  162,  163-164,  249,  275,  277, 
2S8  n.,  335,  337,  410-411,  431- 

Isabella,  of  Castile,  8-10,  53,  74. 


590 


INDEX 


Italy,  in  1500,   14-19;    medieval  commerce  "King  William's  War,"  307. 

of,  44-48,  62 ;    scene  of  conflict  between  Knights  Hospitalers  of  St.  John  and  Malta, 

Francis  I  and   Charles  V,  77-80;   art  in,         115. 

186-194;    religion  in,  163;   and  Napoleon,  Knights  Templars,  115. 

514-515,   526-527,   534,   57S-_     (See  Papal  "Knights' War,"  85. 

States,    Sardinia,   Two   Sicilies,   Tuscany,  Knox,  John,  129,  146-147. 

Venice,  etc.)  Kosciuszko,  388. 

Ivan  III  (the  Great),  of  Russia,  22,  366,  368,  Kublai  Khan,  50. 

369.  Kuchuk  Kainarji,  treaty  of,  386. 

Ivan  IV  (the  Terrible),  of  Russia,  22  n.  Kutusov,  General,  560-561. 


Jacobins  (French),   491,  493,  497-498,  503, 

508,  524,  533. 
Jacobites  (British),  252,  288  n.,  289,  291. 
Jamaica,  280. 
James  I,  of  England  (James  VI,  of  Scotland), 

99,  200,  222,  263-264,  267-270,  272,  274, 

296-297,  300. 
James  II,  of  England  (James  VII,  of  Scot- 
land),  248,   249,   252,   282,   286-288,   291, 

297-298,  307,  308. 
James  (III),  of  England  and  Scotland  ("Old 

Pretender"),  289  n.,  291,  308. 
James  IV,  of  Scotland,  6. 
James  V,  of  Scotland,  146. 
James  VI,  of  Scotland.     {See  James  I,  of 

England.) 
Janissaries,  385. 
Jansenism,  408. 
Janssen,  Cornelius,  408. 
Jena,  battle  of,  539,  546,  555,  562. 
Jenkins's  Ear,  War  of,  310-31 1,  356. 
Jenkinson,  60. 
Jenner,  Edward,  417. 
Jerusalem,  114. 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  113. 
Jesus,  Society  of  (Jesuits),  98,  160-162,  306, 

408-410,  443,  445,  173-174- 
Jews,  123. 
Joanna,  74. 

John  III  (Sobieski),  of  Poland,  383. 
John  II,  of  Portugal,  51. 
John,  Don,  of  Austria,  94,  106. 
John  George,  of  Saxony,  222. 
Jones,  Inigo,  187. 
Jonson,  196. 

Joseph  II,  Emperor,  444,  445-448,  495. 
Joseph  I,  of  Portugal,  444. 
Josephine,  French  Empress,  514,  555. 
Jourdan,  506,  514. 

Julius  II,  Pope,  16,  151,  182,  189,  190. 
"Justification  by  Faith,"  131. 

Karlowitz,  treaty  of,  345  n.,  383. 

Kaunitz,  358. 

Kepler,  199. 

Kiel,  treaty  of,  564. 

"King  George's  War,"  311,  357. 


Lafayette,  334,  460,  472,  475,  476,  477,  480, 

491,  497,  501,  571. 
La  Fontaine,  237. 
La  Hogue,  307. 
Laisscr-faire,  338,  425,  458. 
La  Rochelle,  siege  of,  214. 
La  Salle,  300,  301. 
Las  Casas,  Bartolomd  de,  61,  67. 
Las  Cases,  Marquis  de,  572. 
Laud,  273,  274. 
Lavoisier,  417. 

Law,  International,  development  of,  230-232. 
Law,  John,  255-256. 
League  of  Cambrai,  18. 
Leclerc,  532. 
Legislative  Assembly.     {See  Assembly,  ht^- 

islative.) 
"Legitimacy,"  567. 
Leibnitz,  416. 

Leipzig,  battle  of,  564;  disputation  at,  132. 
Leo  X,  Pope,  79,  127-128,  151,  158,  182,  183, 

190. 
Leon,  Ponce  de,  56. 

Leopold  I,  Emperor,  245,  247,  250,  252,  349. 
Leopold  II,  Emperor,  495,  496,  499,  543. 
Lepanto,  battle  of,  106,  383. 
Lessing,  443. 

Leszczynski,  Stanislaus,  256,  377. 
Let  Ires  de  cachet,  457. 
Lexington,  battle  of,  332. 
Liberation,  War  of,  556,  562-566. 
Liberum  Veto,  382,  385. 
Ligurian  Republic.     {See  Genoa.) 
Lindet,  505. 
Linnaeus,  417. 
Literatiu"e,    in   sixteenth   century,    193-196; 

in  Age  of  Louis  XIV,  237-238. 
Lithuania.     {See  Poland.) 
Livonia,  374,  376,  378. 
Locke,  418-419. 
Lollards,  123. 
Lombardy,  66. 
Lomenie  de  Brienne,  460. 
Long  Parliament,  274-281. 
Lords,  House  of.     {See  Parliament,  English.) 
"Lords  of  the  Congregation,"  147. 
Lorraine,  230,  245-246,  249,  256,  457  n. 


INDEX 


591 


Louis  XI,  of  France,  6,  20,  77,  211. 

Louis  XII,  of  France,  7,  17,  18,  77,  183,  186, 

188,  189,  190. 
Louis  XIII,  of  France,  iqi,  211-216,  217, 

219,  270. 
Louis  XIV,  of  France,   191,  195,  216-218, 

230,  235-255,  25S-260,  263,  284,  289,  290, 

301,  304-308,  343,  349.  371,  375.  408-409, 

418,  454,  456,  466,  468,  503,  506,  528,  529, 

535.  542.  565,  572. 
Louis  XV,  of  France,  255-256,  315,  358-359. 

415,  449.  456-458,  466,  468. 
Louis  XVI,  of  France,  425,  458-461,  466, 

469-478,  4S7-4S8,  496-504,  511,  512,  536, 

567- 
Louis  XV'II,  of  France,  511,  567. 
Louis  X\'III,  of  France  (count  of  Provence), 

467,  4S8,  567-569,  571. 
Louisburg,  309,  311-314,  326. 
Louisiana,  301,  317,  336,  532. 
Louvois,  237,  240-241. 
Lowe,  Sir  Hudson,  572. 
Lowther,  Sir  James,  435,  439. 
Loyola,  Ignatius,  160-161,  174. 
Liibeck,  peace  of,  224. 
Lundviile,  treaty  of,  527,  537,  541. 
Luiher,   Martin,   84-85,    129-136,   142,    158, 

161,  166,  184,  19s,  342,  353,  170-171. 
Lutheranism,  84-86,  130-140,  164-169,  220- 

229,  412. 
Lutter,  battle  of,  223. 
Liitzen,  battle  of  (1632),  226;   (1813),  563. 
Luxemburg,  247,  249. 

Machiavelli,  14  n.,  88,  194,  231. 

Madagascar,  240,  302. 

Madeira,  51. 

Madras,  303,  304,  311,  3 1 7- 

Magdeburg,  225,  228,  348. 

Magellan,  54. 

Magna  Carta.  264,  266,  282,  432,  482. 

Mainz,  archbishopric  of,  12,  131. 

Malplacjuet,  battle  of,  253. 

Malta,  So,  106,  575. 

Manorial  System,  in  1500,  29-36;  in  eight- 
eenth century,  395-399. 

Manufacturing.  (See  Gilds ;  Industry ; 
Mercantilism.) 

Marat,  491-494,  498,  509,  510,  517. 

Marengo,  battle  of,  526,  546. 

Margaret  of  Parma.  {See  Parma,  duchess 
of.) 

iMaria  Louisa,  555,  566. 

Maria  Theresa,  of  Austria,  346-347,  351- 
3S_2.  355-362,  387,  443-445.  459- 

Maria  Theresa,  of  France,  230,  243. 

Marie  Antoinette,  459,  467,  476-478,  487- 
488,  495-496,  499,  508,  510. 


Marie  de'  Medici.     {See  Medici,  Marie  de'.) 

Marignano,  battle  of,  77. 

Marlborough,  253,  308. 

Marlowe,  ig6. 

Marseillaise,  499,  505,  544. 

Marston  Moor,  battle  of,  276. 

Mary,  of  Burgundy,  13,  74. 

Mary  I   (Tudor),  of  England,  86,  g8,    147, 

154-155.  190. 
Mary  II,  of  England,  287-289. 
Mary  (Stuart),  Queen  of  Scots,  98-99,  103, 

108,  147. 
Mass,  in  Catholic  Church,  119,  154,  155. 
Massachusetts,  300,  331. 
Masulipatam,  317. 
Matrimony,  119. 
Matthias,  Emperor,  221. 
Matthias  Hunyadi,  of  Hungary,  23. 
Maundeville,  Sir  John,  45  n. 
Mauritius,  567  n.,  575. 
Maximilian  I,  Emperor,  13,  20,  74,  190. 
Maximilian,  of  Bavaria,  220,  222,  228,  352. 
Mazarin,   Cardinal,   216-218,   229-230,  232- 

233.  235,  238,  242,  542. 
Medici  Family,  18-19,  25  ,70,  158,   187-189. 
Medici,  Catherine  de',  101-104,  197. 
Medici,  Lorenzo  de',  19,  127,  182. 
Medici,  Marie  de',  191,  211-212,  215. 
Medicine,  175-176,  417. 
Melancthon,  136. 
Mendicants,  115. 
MercantiHsm,  63-64,  239-240,  322-324,  338, 

351,  400-401. 
"Merchant  Adventurers,"  262. 
Metayers,  32. 
Methodists,  148,  412. 
IMethuen  Treaty,  252,  289,  550. 
Mctz,  79,  102,  228. 
Mexico,  56,  74. 

Michael  (Romanov),  of  Russia,  369. 
Michelangelo,  186-189. 
Middle  Class.     {See  Bourgeoisie.) 
Milan,  7,  16,  17,  74,  77-79,  87,  253,  516. 
Milan  Decree,  548. 
Milton,  1 95,  196. 
Minorca,  309,  313,  334.  336. 
Mirabeau,  471-474,  487,  491-493,  543. 
Mir  Jafir,  317. 

Missionaries,  Christian,  61,  115,  162. 
Mississippi,  56,  309,  312,  317. 
Mobile,  310. 
Moguls,  302. 

Mohammed  II,  of  Turkey,  52. 
Mohammedanism,  123,  170.     (S'ee  Turkey.) 
Mohacs,  battle  of,  81. 
Moldavia,  386.     {See  Rumania.) 
Moliere,  237. 
Moluccas.     {See  Spice  Islands.) 


592 


INDEX 


Monastic  Orders,  114-115,  406;  suppression 
of,  in  England,  154,  in  France,  484. 

Monck,  General,  28 1. 

Mongols,  22,  52,  368. 

Monmouth,  duke  of,  286. 

Montcalm,  314,  315. 

Montenegro,  23. 

Montesquieu,  421-422,  485. 

Montezuma,  56. 

Montfort,  Simon  de,  265. 

Montreal,  314,  315- 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  150,  153,  157,  183-184, 
igS,  201-202. 

Morea,  80. 

Moreau,  506,  514,  526. 

Moriscos,  91. 

Moscow,  21,  368,  369,  379,  561. 

Mountainists,  503. 

Mijnzer,  Thomas,  134  n. 

Murat,  Joachim,  552,  564,  571  n. 

Murillo,  191,  igs- 

Murshidabad,  317. 

Muscovy,  21-22,  366.     {See  Russia.) 

Music,  in  sixteenth  century,  192. 

Mutiny  Act,  288. 

Mysore,  339. 

Nantes,  Edict  of,  144,  209,  214,  241,  349, 
408. 

Naples,  7,  9,  16,  74,  76-79,  253,  256,  444  n., 
S16,  534.  S4I,  SS2,  571  n. 

Napoleon  I,  emperor  of  the  French,  510,  511, 
514-517,  523-581,  319- 

Napoleon  III,  emperor  of  the  French,  573. 

"Napoleonic  Legend,"  572-573- 

National  Assembly.  {See  Assembly,  Na- 
tional Constituent.) 

National  Convention.  {See  Convention, 
National.) 

National  Guard,  475,  477. 

Nationalism,  in  si.xteenth  century,  3-10,  14- 
15  n.,  24,  81-84,  89-90;  and  religion, 
120-122,  125,  167;  and  commerce,  63; 
and  Napoleon,  518,  545,  575- 

"Natural  Boundaries,"  doctrine  of,  80,  242, 

243- 
Navarre,  8,  76,  77,  102,  105. 
Navigation  .Jicts,  277,  304,  323-324.  325,  328, 

338,  401- 
Near  East,  Problem  of,  386-387. 
Necker,  458-459,  474,  475- 
Nelson,  516,  527,  538. 
Nepotism,  127. 
Netherlands,    Austrian    (Belgian),    95,    253, 

344-346,  3S5,  357,  446-447.  4Q6,  504,. SI5- 
Netherlands,      Dutch       (Holland ;       Seven 

United  Provinces),  57-59,  QS-07,  loi,  14s, 

227,  229,  232,  243-249,  254,  290,  299,  306- 


307,  334,  337,  356-358,  S16,  534.  550,  564, 

576-577- 
Netherlands  (or  Low  Countries),  19-20,  25, 

49,  57-58,  74,  75,  77-79,  86-89,  91-97,  III. 

13s.  145.  162;    kingdom  of,  564. 
Netherlands,  Spanish  (Belgian),  91-95,  162, 

219,  227-228,  242-244,  253. 
New  Amsterdam,  59. 

New  England,  148,  300-301,  307,  325-326. 
Newfoundland,  300,  309. 
New  France,  301,  305,  312. 
"New  Model,"  287. 
New  Netherland,  59,  60,  301. 
New  Orleans,  310. 
New  Spain,  60. 
"New  Tories,"  439. 
New  York,  59,  301  n.,  325. 
Newspapers,  437-438. 
Newton,  415-416,  418,  421. 
Ney,  562,  569. 

Niagara,  Fort,  310,  313,  314. 
Nijmwegen,  treaty  of,  246. 
Nile,  battle  of,  527,  546. 
Nobility,   in   sbcteenth   century,    28-34,   9°, 

loi ;   French  in  seventeenth  century,  214- 

215,  237,  239;  in  eighteenth  century,  403- 

405,    464;     in    French    Revolution,    469, 

472,  479-481,  518. 
Noblesse  de  la  robe,  238,  453. 
Non-conformists,  156. 
North,  Lord,  292,  330,  436. 
North  America.     {See  America.) 
Northwest  Passage,  60. 
Norway,  21,  137,  378,  564.     {See  Denmark.) 
Nova  Scotia,  309. 
Nystad,  treaty  of,  378,  381. 

"Oath  of  the  Tennis  Court,"  473. 

Octroi,  39. 

Oglethorpe,  James,  311. 

Ohio  Company,  312. 

Orange  Family.     {See  William,  of  Orange.) 

"Orders  in  Council,"  548. 

Ordination,  119,  166. 

Orleans,  duke  of  (Regent),  255-256,  456. 

Orleans,  duke  of  (Philippe  Egalite),  503,  508. 

Orthodox  Church,    122;    in   Russia,   21-22, 

368,  372-373,  380-382. 
Oswego,  314. 
Otis,  James,  329. 

Ottoman  Empire.     {See  Turkey.) 
Ottoman  Turks.     {See  Turkey.) 
Oudenarde,  l)attle  of,  253. 
Oxford  Reformers,  149. 

Pacifism,  210,  411-412. 

Paine,  Thomas,  495,  503. 

Painting,  in  sixteenth  century,  188-192. 


INDEX 


593 


Palatinate,  in  Thirty  Years'  War,  220,  22?, 
228-229,352;  War  of  the,  247-249. 

Palestrina,  192. 

Pallium,  117,  126. 

Panama,  54. 

Papal  States,  16,  78-79,  406  n.,  550. 

Paper,  invention  of,  1 78. 

Paris,  and  the  Fronde,  218;  commune  of, 
475-476,  500 ;  and  the  Prench  Revolution, 
467,  474-478,  487-488,  490-40,5,  498,  SOI, 
506,  508,  510,  513  ;  beautification  of,  under 
Napoleon  I,  532;  surrender  of  (1814), 
566;  peace  of  (1763),  317;  (1783).  oo5, 
336;  treaty  of  (1814),  567. 

Parish,  114. 

Parlemenls,  French,  217-21S,  450,  452-453, 
458,  460-461. 

ParUament,  English  (British),  origin  of, 
265-266;  under  the  Tudors,  4,  5,  152-156, 
261-263,  266-267 ;  contest  with  Stuarts, 
267-2S8;  in  eighteenth  century,  289- 
293.  323,  327-329.  337,  403.  430-439- 

Parliament,  French.     {See  Estates-General.) 

Parliament,  German.     (See  Diet.) 

Parliament,  Irish,  431. 

Parliament,  in  Netherlands.  {See  States- 
General.) 

Parliament,  Portuguese.     {See  Cortes.) 

Parliament,  Spanish.     {See  Cortes.) 

Parma,  duke  of  (Alexander  Farnese),  95. 

Parma,  Margaret,  duchess  of,  92. 

Parthenopaean  Republic.     {See  Naples.) 

Pascal,  408. 

Patriarchate,  114. 

Patrimony  of  Saint  Peter.  {See  Papal 
States.) 

Paul  I,  of  Russia,  537. 

Paul  III,  Pope,  158,  198. 

Pavia,  siege  of,  78. 

Peasantry,  in  sixteenth  century,  29-36;  and 
Protestant  Revolt  in  Germany,  133-134, 
169;  French,  and  Richelieu,  215;  and 
Colbert,  239 ;  in  eighteenth  century,  395- 
399,  405  ;  in  French  Revolution,  469,  472, 
479,  480,  488,  489,  518;  and  Napwleon, 
533;   in  Prussia,  556. 

Peasants'  Revolt,  in  Germany,  133-135. 

Penance,  11 8-1 19. 

Peninsular  War,  551-554,  557-558,  565- 

Pennsylvania,  301,  411. 

PeppereU,  WiUiam,  311. 

Peru,  56. 

Peter  I  (the  Great),  of  Russia,  369-374,  376- 
379,  388. 

Peter  III,  of  Russia,  360,  380. 

"Peter's  Pence,"  117,  407. 

Petition  of  Right,  271-272,  282,  288. 

Petrarch,  15,  180-182,  193,  194,  201. 


Petrograd  (St.  Petersburg),  379. 

Piiilip  IV  (the  Fair),  of  France,  469. 

Philip  I,  of  Spain,  13,  74. 

Philip  II,  of  Spain,  55-58,  86-107,  155,  163, 
187,  190,  261,  303,  572. 

I'hilip  III,  of  Spain,  96. 

I'hihp  IV,  of  Spain,  226,  230,  243. 

Philip  V,  of  Spain  (Philip  of  Anjou),  250- 
253,  256  n. 

Philippines,  54,  58,  315,  317. 

I'hilosophes,  419. 

Pichegru,  506,  514,  533. 

Piedmont,  534,  568.     {See  Sardinia.) 

"Pilgrimage  of  Grace,"  153. 

Pilgrims,  300. 

Pillnitz,  Declaration  of,  496. 

Pitt,  WiUiam  (Earl  of  Chatham),  292,  314, 
327,  360,  321. 

Pitt,  WiUiam  (the  younger),  438-439,  516, 
537-538,  546. 

Pius  V,  Pope,  106. 

Pius  VII,  Pope,  529,  533,  550,  568. 

Pius  X,  Pope,  117. 

Pizarro,  56. 

Plain  (French  political  group),  503. 

Plassey,  battle  of,  317. 

Plebiscite,  526,  533. 

Poland,  in  1500,  22;  religion  of,  162-164, 
381-382 ;  personal  union  of,  with  Saxony, 
353;  and  Sweden,  225,  376-377;  and  Tur- 
key, 383;  and  Prussia,  348,  361,  506;  and 
Russia,  367,  369,  385-388;  in  eighteenth 
century,  381-383,  390;  partitions  of; 
361,  387-388;  grand-duchy  of  Warsaw, 
540,  541,  559,  563,  564- 

Pole,  Cardinal,  155. 

Polish  Election,  War  of,  256,  456. 

Politiques,  104-105. 

Polo,  Marco,  50. 

Poltava,  battle  of,  377. 

Pomerania,  228,  348,  374,  376,  378,  564. 

Pompadour,  Madame  de,  358,  457,  459- 

Pondicherry,  304,  310,  311,  317,  319. 

Poniatowski,  Stanislaus,  385,  388,  495. 

Pope   (and   Papacy),   claims  and  rights  of, 
113-117,    122,    159,    166,    169-170,    409; 
temporal  rule  of,  16-18,  78-79,  106,  406  n., 
550;    patronage  of  art  and  learning  by, 
183,    189-190;     and    Protestant    Revolt, 
124-156;     and    French   Revolution,   484; 
and  Napoleon,  529,  533,  550. 
"Popish  Plot,"  285. 
Port  Jackson,  340. 
Port  Royal,  307,  308. 

Portugal,  in  1500,  7-10;  and  exploration, 
51-52  ;  commercial  importance  of,  53,  55  ; 
religion  in,  163 ;  annexed  by  Spain,  55-56, 
89-91;    independence  reestabUshed,   228; 


2Q 


594 


INDEX 


close    relation    with    England,    252;     in 
eighteenth  century,  444;    and  Napoleon, 

550-553- 
Pragmatic  Sanction  of  Bourges,  121. 
Pragmatic  Sanction  of  Emperor  Charles  VI, 

346,  353,  356- 
Prague,  siege  of,  359;  treaty  of,  226. 
Predestination,  165-166. 
Presbyterians,  143,  263,  273-276,  280,   284- 

28s,  411.     {See  Calvinism.) 
Presqu'  Isle,  Fort,  312. 
Pressburg,  treaty  of,  538-539- 
"Prester  John,"  51. 
Pride's  Purge,  276. 
Priesthood,  Christian,  119. 
Priestley,  411,  417- 
Princeton,  battle  of,  333. 
Printing,  177-180,  202. 
Priors,  114. 

Privy  Council  (English),  290,  432. 
Protectorate,  British,  279-281. 
Protestant,  origin  of  name,  136. 
Protestantism  (and  the  Protestant  Revolt), 

124-174,  410-413- 
Provence,  6,  451  n. 
Provence,  count  of.     {See  Louis  XVIII,  of 

France.) 
"Provisions  of  Oxford,"  265. 
Prussia,  348  n. ;    rise  of,  347-352.  440-443  ; 

a  kingdom,  254,  350 ;  conflict  with  Austria, 

354-362;    and   French   Revolution,    506; 

Napoleon   and   regeneration   of,    538-542, 

555-557,  560,  562-566,  570-571,  575-     {Sec 

Brandenburg.) 
"Ptolemaic  System,"  197-198. 
PubUc  Safety,  Committee  of,  507-508. 
Puerto  Rico,  56. 
Puritanism,  143,  148,  268-269,  273-282,  284- 

285,  300. 
Pym,  John,  274. 
Pyrenees,  Peace  of  the,  230,  242,  243. 

Quakers,  156,  301,  411,  437. 

Quebec,  301,  307,  314-31S,  3i7,  33^,  337- 

Quebec  Act,  331,  337- 

Queen  Anne's  War,  252,  308. 

Quesnay,  425. 

Quiberon  Bay,  battle  of,  315. 

Rabelais,  194. 

Racine,  237. 

Raleigh,  59. 

Ramillics,  battle  of,  253. 

Raphael,  186,  189-190. 

Rationalism,   Eighteenth-Century,  418-426, 

429. 
Reformation,  129.     {See  Protestantism  and 

the  Protestant  Revolt.) 


Reformation,  Catholic,  156-164. 
Reformed  Church,  143.     {See  Calvinism.) 
Reichsdcputalionshauptschluss,  541-542. 
Rembrandt,  191-192. 
Requesens,  94. 
Restitution,  Edict  of,  224. 
Restoration,  English,  281-287. 
Revolution,   American,   322,    332-337,    340- 

341,  431,  436,  459-460. 
Revolution,   Enghsh,   of   16S8    (1689),    286- 

293,  297-298,  248. 
Revolution,  French,  332,  424,  439,  443,  464- 

522. 
Revolution,  Religious,  in  sixteenth  century, 

124-174. 
Revolutionary  Tribunal,  508,  511. 
Richelieu,  Cardinal,  212-216,  219,  225-228, 
232-233,  23s,  238,  242,  304,  306  n.,  528, 
542,  565. 
Rights  of   Man,   Declaration    of    (French), 

482. 
Robbia,  Luca  della,  187. 
Robespierre,   491,    493-494,    498,    503,    507, 

509,  511,  514,  S17- 
Rochelle.     {Sec  La  Rochelle.) 
Rochester,  John  Fisher,  bishop  of,  153. 
Rockingham,  330. 
Rocroi,  battle  of,  228. 
Rodney,  228,  335. 
Roland,  Madame,  498,  508. 
Romanov  Family,  369,  389. 
Rome,    as    ecclesiastical    center,    113,    114; 
bishop  of,  see  Pope ;  sack  of,  78 ;  see  Papal 
States. 
Roses,  Wars  of  the,  4. 
Rossbach,  battle  of,  359. 
"Rotten  Boroughs,"  434-43'S- 
"Roundheads,"  275. 
Rousseau,    421-424,    445,    465,    490,    493, 

503- 
Royal  Council  (French),  449-451. 
Royal  Society  (English),  418. 
Rubens,  191. 
Rudolph  I,  Emperor,  13. 
Rudolph  II,  Emperor,  221. 
Rumania    (Rumanians,    Rumans),    23,    34s, 

383.      {See      Moldavia;      Transylvania; 

Wallachia.) 
Rump  Parliament,  276-279,  281. 
Russia,  in  1500,  21-22,  25;    in  seventeenth 

and  eighteenth   centuries,   358-361,    366- 

390,  443;    and    Napoleon,    526,   537-S41, 

558-567,  575- 
Ryswick,  treaty  of,  249,  251,  307. 

Sacraments,  118-119,  165-167. 
Salamanca,  battle  of,  557. 
Sans-culoUes,  510. 


INDEX 


595 


Saratoga,  battle  of,  333- 

Sardinia  (Savoy,  I'iedmont),  19,  76,  142,  252, 

254.  356,  505.  514.  534.  568. 
Savonarola,  ig. 
Saxe,  Marshal,  357. 
Saxony,  12,  130,  132,  225,  227,  353,  356,  358- 

359.  540,  564-565.  568. 
Scandinavian  Countries,  21.     (See  Denmark  ; 

Norway ;   Sweden.) 
Scharnhorst,  556. 
Scheldt,  closure  of  the,  95. 
Schmaikald,  League  of,  85,  136. 
Schwarzenberg,  564,  565,  570. 
Science,  in  sixteenth  century,  196-203;    in 

seventeenth     and     eighteenth     centuries, 

414-419,  429- 
Scotland,    6,    79,    146-147.    289,    430.     {See 

England.) 
Sculpture,  in  sbcteenth  century,  187-188. 
"  Sea  Beggars,"  94. 
Second  Coalition,  516,  526,  532. 
Security,  Committee  of  General,  508. 
See,  ecclesiastical,  114. 
Senegal,  240,  302,  317  n.,  336. 
Separatists,  411.     (See  Independents.) 
September  Massacres,  501. 
Serbia  (Serbs),  23,  345. 
Serfdom,  in  sixteenth  century,  30-31,  32-36, 

134-135;   in  eighteenth  century,  396-399; 

in  Russia,  443 ;  in  Austria,  445,  447,  448  n. ; 

abolition  of,  in  P'rance,  479,  480-481,  528, 

530;    abolition  of,  in  Napoleonic  States, 

543.  552;   abolition  of,  in  Prussia,  556. 
Servetus,  143. 
Settlement,  Act  of,  289  n. 
Seven  Years'  War,  312-319,  359-361,  385. 

457.  459- 
Sevigne,  Madame  de,  237. 
Sforza  Family,  17,  77,  78,  188. 
Shakespeare,  196. 
"Ship  Monej',"  272-273,  274. 
Short  Parliament,  274. 
Siberia,  367-368,  373. 
SiciUan  Vespers,  16. 
Sicily,    16,    76,    87,    106,    254.     (See    Two 

Sicilies.) 
Sickingen,  Franz  von,  84-85. 
Siey^s,  471-473.  49i.  503,  525- 
Silesia,  355,  357,  359-361,  442. 
Simony,  127. 
Six  Articles,  153. 
Slavery  (and  Slave-trade),   56,  60,  61,  67, 

71-72,  412,  437.  532. 
Slavs,  21.     (See  Russia,  etc.) 
Smith,  Adam,  338,  421,  425-426. 
Smolensk,  capture  of,  by  Napoleon,  561. 
Sobieski,  John,  383. 
"Solemn  League  and  Covenant,"  275,  285. 


Spain,  in  1500,  7-10;  in  sixteenth  century, 
17,  18,  74-76,  87-91,  106,  109;  colonial 
empire  of,  49,  53-58,  61,  299,  308-309, 
310-312,  315,  317,  334-336,  532,  576; 
religion  in,  163,  408,  552 ;  in  eighteenth 
century,  250,  444;  and  England,  60,  97- 
loi,  269-270,  30S-309,  310-312,  315,  317, 
334-336,  576;  and  France,  75,  97.  104-105, 
227-228,  229-230,  242-254,  315,  317,  334- 
336,  495,  505,  506;  and  Netherlands,  58- 
59,  91-97,  229;  and  Portugal,  55-56,  90- 
91,  228;  and  Napoleon,  532,  550-554. 
557-558.  568,  576. 

"  Spanish  Fury,"  58,  94. 

Spanish  Succession,  War  of,  249-254,  257, 
289,  308-309,  346,  349,  352-353.  359- 

Spenser,  Edmund,  195. 

Speyer,  Diets  of,  130,  135-136- 

Spice  Islands,  45,  55. 

St.  Bartholomew's  Day,  Massacre  of,  103- 
104. 

St.  Benedict,  115. 

St.  Dominic,  115. 

St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  115. 

St.  Helena,  Napoleon  at,  571-573. 

St.  Just,  503,  507,  509. 

St.  Lucia,  567  n.,  575. 

St.  Peter,  113. 

St.  Petersburg  (Petrograd),  379.  . 

Stadion,  Count,  554. 

Stamp  Act,  328-330. 

Stamp  Act  Congress,  329. 

Stanislaus  I  (Leszczynski) ,  of  Poland,    256, 

377- 
Stanislaus  II  (Poniatowski),  of  Poland,  385, 

388,  495. 
Star  Chamber,  Court  of,  5,  274. 
States-General,  of  Netherlands,  20,  96-97- 
Stein,  Baron  vom,  S5S-5S6,  562. 
Stephen  I  (St.  Stephen),  of  Hungary,  23. 
Stockholm,  treaties  of,  378. 
Storch,  Nicholas,  134  n. 
Strafford,  274. 
Straits  Settlements,  340. 
Strassburg,  247,  249,  499. 
Streltsi,  370-371. 
Stuart  Family,  146,  263-264,  282-283,  289, 

294,  300. 
Sufifren,  335. 
Sugar  Act,  328. 
Syleiman  II  (the  Magnificent),  of  Turkey, 

80-81,  106,  383.  384- 
Sully,  210-211,  235,  238. 
Suraj-ud-Dowlah,  316-317- 
Suspects,  Law  of,  508. 
Sweden,  in  1500,  21 ;  religious  revolution  in, 

137-139;    and  Thirty  Years'  War,   224- 

228;   and  Louis  XIV,  244-245;   in  Great 


596 


INDEX 


Northern  War,  374-379,  390;    and  Napo-    Two  Sicilies,  16,  87,  256,  344-345.  516,  S34, 
leon,  537.  540-541.  559.  564-  57 1-     (See  Naples;   Sicily.) 

Svntzerland,  11,  139-141,  143,  229,  516,  564.    Tyrol,  135,  344,  447,  539,  S54-5SS,  564- 


Taille,  239,  397.  45 1,  454-455- 

Talleyrand,  532,  S44.  552.  567. 

Tasso,  194. 

Tatars,  368.     {See  Mongols.) 

Taylor,  Jeremy,  196. 

Terror,  Reign  of,  507-509. 

Tetzel,  131. 

Teutonic  Knights,  115,  348  n. 

Texas,  56. 

Theology,  n8. 

Thermidorian  Reaction,  509,  511. 

Theses,  Ninety-five,  of  Luther,  131-132. 

Third  Coalition,  537-540.  542. 

Third  Estate,  211,  238,  403,  470-474. 

Thirty-nine  Articles,  155,  166,  410. 

Thirty  Years'  War,  97,   146,   218-234,   243, 
342-343,  345.  348,  352. 

Three-field  System  of  Agriculture,  33. 

Three  Henries,  War  of  the,  104-105. 

Ticonderoga,  Fort,  313,  314. 

Tilly,  222,  223,  225-226. 

Tilsit,    treaty   of,    S39-54i.    549,    555.   558, 
559. 

Tithe,  35,  397,  411,  480. 

Titian,  190. 

Tobago,  336,  567  n.,  575. 

Toleration  Act  (English),  289,  410. 

Tories,  286-288,  291-292,  328,  332,  436,  439. 

Toul,  79,  228. 

Toulon,  524,  531. 

Toussaint  L'Ouverture,  532. 

Towns.     [See  Cities.) 

Townshend  Acts,  331. 

Trade.     (See  Commerce.) 

Trafalgar,  battle  of,  534,  538,  546. 

Transubstantiation,  119,  166. 

Transylvania,  345,  383. 

Trebizond,  52. 

Trent,  Council  of,  90,  158-160,  190. 

Trenton,  battle  of,  333. 

Triennial  Act,  275. 

'Troublous  Times,"  in  Russia,  369. 

Tudor  Family,  4-6,   109,   150-156,    261-263, 

300. 
Tugeitdbiiiid,  557. 

Turenne,  228-229,  237,  241,  246,  249. 
Turgot,  425,  458. 

Turkey,  in  1500,  23,  26;  in  si.xteenth  cen- 
tury, 76,  79,  80-81,  87,  106,  III ;  in  seven- 
teenth century,  247,  345,  369-370,  383; 
in  eighteenth  century,  383-387,  390;  and 
Napoleon,  540,  559. 
Tuscany,  19,  444.  (See  Florence.) 
Twelve  Articles,  134. 


Ulm,  battle  of,  538. 

Ultramontanism,  409. 

Uniformity,  Act  of,  284. 

Unigenilus,  409. 

Unitarians,  411. 

United  Kingdom,  431.  (See  England;  Ire- 
land;  Scotland.) 

United  Provinces,  95.  (See  Netherlands, 
Dutch.) 

United  States  of  America,  336. 

Upsala,  archbishop  of,  138. 

Utrecht,  Peace  of,  253-254,  308-309,  344, 
349,  356;    Union  of,  95. 

Valmy,  501,  504. 

Valois  Family,  108. 

Van  Dyck,  191. 

Varennes,  Flight  to,  487-488. 

Vasco  da  Gama,  51-52,  55,  72,  195,  303. 

Vauban,  237,  241,  247. 

Vega,  Lope  de,  195. 

Velasquez,  191,  195. 

Venango,  Fort,  313. 

Vendee,  La,  488,  494,  504,  506,  508. 

Venice  (Venetia),   16-17,  44,  46-49.  52-53. 

62,  78,  80,  106,  231,  383,  515,  539,  564. 
Verdun,  79,  228,  501. 
Vergniaud,  498,  503,  509. 
Verrazano,  54,  60,  300. 
Versailles,    237,    476-47S;     treaty   of,    335- 

337. 
Vervins,  treaty  of,  105,  209. 
Vespucci,  Amerigo,  54. 
Victor  Emmanuel  I,  of  Sardinia,  568. 
Vienna,  Congress  of,  568,  570;    siege  of,  by 

Turks,  81,  383. 
Vinci,  Leonardo  da,  188-189. 
Vingtieme,  454-455. 
Virginia,  300. 
Visconti  Family,  17,  187. 
Vittoria,  battle  of,  565. 
Vlachs,  23.     (See  Rumania.) 
Volta,  417. 

Voltaire,  355,  380,  419-421,  443,  458,  465. 
Voyages.     (See  Exploration.) 
Vulgate,  160. 

Wagram,  battle  of,  554,  573- 

Wallachia,  386.     (See  Rumania.) 

Wallcnstein,  199,  223-226,  234. 

Walloon,  19,  95. 

Walpole,  Sir  Robert,  291-293.  311.  324.  435" 

436. 
Wandewash,  317. 


INDEX 


597 


Warsaw  Decree,  548. 

Washington,  George,  313,  332,  333,  334,  336. 

Waterloo,  battle  of,  558,  570. 

Wellington,  Arthur  WcUesley,  duke  of,  553, 

557.  5(15.  570. 
\\'entworth,  Thomas,  274. 
Wesley,  John,  412. 
West  Indies,  302.     {See  America.) 
Westphalia,    kingdom    of,    534,    543,    564 ; 

Peace  of,  07,  228-229,  231,  246,  348,  352. 
Whigs,  285-202,  327-328,  330,  435-439- 
Wilkes,  437. 
William  III,  of  England,  248-249,  251,  287- 

290,  307,  308,  432.     {See  William  III,  of 

Orange.) 
William  I  (the  Silent),  of  Orange,  93-94,  96. 
William  III,  of  Orange,  245,  248-249.     {See 

William  III,  of  England.) 


William  V,  of  Orange,  506. 

William  Henry,  Fort,  313,  314. 

Williams.  Roger,  307. 

Willoughby,  60. 

Wittenberg,  Luther  at,  130-131. 

Wolfe,  314-315- 

Wolsey,  Cardinal,  151. 

Worms,  Diets  of,  13-14,  83,  85,  133. 

Wren,  Sir  Christopher,  187. 

Wiirttemberg,  146,  538,  539.  542- 

WyclitTe,  123,  129. 

Yorck,  General,  562. 
Yorktown,  battle  of,  334. 

ZoUvercin,  project  of,  in  sixteenth  century,  83. 

Zurich,  140. 

Zwingli,   129,   139-140,   142,   172. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America. 


OATEOVJH 


;;;nted.no.sa 


Q^YLOB0 


COLUMBIA  UNIVEHSITV  LIBRARIES 


0046038000 


940 


H326 

1 


